Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

ADDRESS FOR RETURN "Of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1968."—[Mr. Merlyn Rees.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Young Persons in Care (Ward of Court Procedure)

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, after the coming into operation of the Children and Young Persons Act, he will issue a circular to local authorities giving advice to them on the use of the ward of court procedure for young persons in care who make undesirable associations as an alternative to committal to an approved school.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): I do not think that this would be helpful. The local authority must judge, on all the facts of the individual case, what action is called for in the interests of the young person for whom it is responsible.

Miss Lestor: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, does he not agree that large numbers of people were horrified to find that many young people in approved schools had not committed any crime? In an instance of this nature, would it not be advisable to suggest that it would be much better to take action against the man involved in an undesirable association with a young girl who

has not committed any crime, or to make her a ward of court, rather than commit her to an approved school, which is likely to be a stigma in her future life?

Mr. Morgan: As I have explained many times, in these cases the local authority has to balance the question of seeking an approved school order against the possibility that the person concerned will be exposed to very great danger. The question of making such an order as that referred to by my hon. Friend depends also on the attitude of the girl herself. It may be that in certain cases such an order would be appropriate, whereas in others it would be inappropriate.

Mr. Ford: Is my hon. Friend aware of the apprehension concerning the operation of Clause 1 of the Bill where it is thought that some inequality of treatment might arise between pool children and others? Will he look carefully at Amendments which may come from another place on this?

Mr. Morgan: That is much wider than the original Question, but certainly I do not accept my hon. Friend's hypothesis with regard to that provision.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the ward of court procedure has been used by local authorities in the last three years as an alternative to committal to approved schools.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: If the needs of a child or young person for care or protection appear to a juvenile court to call for residential treatment in an approved school, the courts may order accordingly, and have regularly done so for many years. Such treatment cannot be provided by making the child a ward of court.

Mr. Lipton: Does not that answer reveal that very inadequate use is being made of the ward of court procedure by juvenile court magistrates? Es not that responsible for the fact that there are no fewer than 742 girls in approved schools who have committed no offence whatsoever?

Mr. Morgan: It is not the juvenile court magistrates who decide whether


they shall follow this procedure but the local authorities. I understand that there are six or seven cases every year where such an order is made, but normally they are cases where there is the danger of a child or young person being taken out of the country or where, without an order having been made, there is a danger of the natural parents who are estranged actually taking the child back from the physical custody of the local authority.

Protection of Animals

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the Protection of Animals Act so as to prohibit cruelty to all animals, including those not in captivity.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I doubt whether amendment of the Protection of Animals Acts would be appropriate for the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind; but in any event I can hold out no prospect of legislation being introduced on this subject.

Miss Lestor: While I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, may I remind him that it is 30 years since we had legislation on animal welfare and about 20 years since the Henderson Committee recommended the sort of proposals contained in the recent Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker)? Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that the attitude of people towards hunting and many other activities in connection with animals which are called sports has changed enormously over the last few years and that some of us would like to see the Government take a lead in this direction?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Rees: I would remind my hon. Friend that the legislation to which she refers is for domestic and captive animals. I sympathise with her personal attitude, but probably it would be more appropriate to have individual Bills rather than a collective one which would run into great trouble.

Prisoners (Cultural and Business Activities)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for the Home

Department (1) what steps are being taken to assist prisoners, while in prison, to undertake cultural activities such as writing books and for the Press and television, and to develop business activities and contacts in the outside world;
(2) if he will take steps to allow prisoners to undertake and further businesses and part-time jobs in the outside world, with a view to offsetting the costs of the prison service by remuneration from these earnings.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Prisoners are encouraged to undertake literary and other cultural activities, but not allowed to pursue any form of business activity. The hostel scheme enables suitable prisoners to take outside employment towards the end of their sentences, and the steps my right hon. Friend is taking to make prison industries profitable will help to offset the cost of the prison service.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend not agree that since a vital part of this process is to rehabilitate and readjust prisoners to outside society, every possible contact should be achieved with that society? Does he accept that in some of the instances that I have brought to his attention prisoners have felt that these contacts and training opportunities are not always available?

Mr. Morgan: The principle of prisons over many centuries is that a person should be withdrawn from society in the hope that he will ultimately be properly rehabilitated. The question of cultural activities is a matter for the governor, in his discretion; he is the one who decides exactly what shall be done in each case. Prisoners are not allowed to profit, save in the exceptional case of the Koestler Award.

Unsolved Murders

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murders known to the police remain unsolved; and how many of these are classified as capital murders.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): The latest corrected figure for unsolved murders known to the police in England and Wales from 1957 to 1968 is 186;


of these, 35 are estimated to be "capital" offences.

Sir Richard Glyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the number of unsolved murders in recent years far exceeds those known to the police before 1964?

Mr. Callaghan: No, sir. Statistics do not bear out that statement. I have the figures in front of me. I would point out, as a necessary corrective that must be made, that of these 186 no fewer than 67 are murders of children under the age of one year, which might properly, if they were ever solved, be classed as infanticides.

Released Murderers (Offences)

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many murderers have been convicted of offences involving violence during the last five years after their release from prison; and how many have been recalled from licence for offences of this nature.

Mr. Callaghan: Since 1st July, 1964, in England and Wales three murderers released on licence have been convicted of further offences of serious violence. All three had their licences revoked.

Sir Richard Glyn: Do these include the case of the released murderer who was convicted of a serious crime of violence at Winchester Assizes recently under another name? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his statistics include cases of murderers who are released and are later convicted under other names?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I am certain about that. I have not the details of the Winchester case. There have been 116 murderers released on licence, and a close watch is kept on their activities. I think that we are aware of every one of them.

Boundary Commission Report (White Paper)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what way the procedure adopted for the publication of Command Paper No. 4084 differed from that used for Command Paper No. 9311.

Mr. Callaghan: I presented the recent Report of the Boundary Commission for England, by command of Her Majesty, for the information of the House. It is not for me to explain the procedure adopted by a previous administration.

Mr. Onslow: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the title page of Cmnd. 4084 he will see that it is presented to Parliament by himself. Can he tell us, from a comparison with the report of the Boundary Commission in 1954, where the difference in these title pages lies in order to justify the Attorney-General's claim that one was laid under Section 2(5) of the 1949 Act and the second was not?

Mr. Callaghan: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not press me on these matters. I have no desire to explain the errors committed by the last Administration in presenting these documents.

Sir D. Renton: I appreciate the Home Secretary's reluctance to explain anything in this matter, but is not he aware that precisely the same procedure was followed by him as was followed by the then Home Secretary in 1954?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am aware of that. The difference is that I did it correctly and my predecessor, alas, was wrong.

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter at an early opportunity.

Subnormal Suspects (Interrogation)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes in procedure he has recommended in the light of the case of Ronald Avard.

Mr. Callaghan: I can find no grounds for legislation to amend the procedures under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964 or Section 27 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963. While I have found nothing in the circumstances of this case to suggest that the police acted improperly or inconsiderately, I am considering the issue of guidance to the police on the interrogation of suspects who are subnormal.

Mr. Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this man, with a mental age of seven, spent many hours at Rugby police station before making a totally false confession, which has since cost the Home Office £5,000 in compensation? Is it not logical in a case of a person with a juvenile mind to treat him as a juvenile and to have his parents present from the beginning?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. As my hon. Friend knows—because it was his persistence which brought the facts to light—the police acted very considerately. They did not take a statement until his father was present. Alas, it was an incorrect statement, and it took my hon. Friend a great deal of diligence, together with others, to reveal that fact. It has now been met quite properly by a payment from the Home Office.

Complaints against Police (Independent Inquiries)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the results of his review of the desirability of introducing independent inquiries into serious complaints against the police.

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now reviewed the present system for dealing with complaints by individuals against the police; and what proposals he has for change in view of the burden which is placed on the administrative efficiency of local forces in the time taken to investigate each individual allegation.

Mr. Callaghan: I have at present nothing I can add to the answers which I gave on 19th June in reply to Questions and supplementary questions by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) and Staly-bridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn).—[Vol. 785, c. 679–80.]

Mr. Whitaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many responsible members of the police are a good deal more radical than is the Home Office, and that they wish the Government would make some progress in this matter? Does not my right hon. Friend now accept the desira-

bility for this in principle, and will he get down to a detailed examination of possible means of implementing it?

Mr. Callaghan: It is not always a good way of persuading me to do something to say that someone else wants it done better than I do. Leaving that on one side, I should point out that a number of views have been expressed, including those of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself. We have a desire to reconcile the fact that this disciplined service must be supported by the House of Commons with a need for ensuring a proper degree of independent observation, in order to ensure that they are not judges in their own cause.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that complaints against the police are often the last refuge of scoundrels who have no legitimate excuse for the crimes that they have committed? Everybody would subscribe to the idea that serious complaints should be properly investigated, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a great deal of valuable police time is wasted on inquiries which prove to be groundless—time which could be better spent on crime detection?

Mr. Callaghan: It is a fact that the majority of complaints against the police come from those with ulterior motives. The House must remember this in considering the facts. On the other hand, a small number of complaints are justified, and every one must be examined, even if it involves spending a great deal of time. I ask the House to keep this matter in balance. We must protect the police who are dealing with criminals against unfounded allegations that can cause them a great deal of pain and waste a great deal of time.

Mr. Rose: Might it not assist my right hon. Friend if he were to distinguish on the one hand between the right of a chief constable to discipline members of his force and on the other the need for a public watchdog to ensure that all inquiries are carried out in a thoroughly judicial manner?

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me on to the ground that I shall certainly get on to in looking at this matter. I prefer to reserve my opinion until I have looked into the matter further.

Obscenity (Arts Council Report)

Mr. Whitaker: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the Arts Council report on censorship; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waddington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report from the Arts Council working party proposing that the Obscene Publications Act and the comparable sections of the Theatres Act should be repealed for a trial period of five years; and what action he proposes to take in this matter.

Mr. Callaghan: I shall study the working party report with care but my present view is that, although there may be defects in the existing law, I shall need a great deal of convincing that repeal of the obscenity laws would be preferable, and I can see no prospect of time being made available for this purpose.

Mr. Whitaker: Whatever view one takes, would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a good deal more emotional opinion on the subject than factual data? Does he not therefore agree that it would be sensible to carry out some research into the question whether certain literature does or does not corrupt anybody, before embarking on legislation?

Mr. Callaghan: I should certainly be very happy to see further research carried out into the matter, because I have indicated that I see no prospect of legislation this Session. Certain provisions of the 1964 Act are intended to cover authors, artists and dramatists. To the extent that they succeed in doing so my conclusion is that interference with the freedom of these artists and authors is minimal at present.

Mr. Waddington: Will the Home Secretary recognise that there is widespread concern in the country at the working party report; and that any change in the present law would be widely regarded not as a step towards a more civilised society but as a step further towards an unduly permissive society?

Mr. Callaghan: Different views are held on this subject. Everyone should read the report of the working party, be-

cause it shows the illogicalities in the existing law. In this matter, I do not want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire. My own view is that, whatever the existing defects, repeal would make the situation worse from the point of view of the average person in the country.

Mr. Maclennan: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the best control of licence in society is public taste? Will he look with favour upon any individual efforts at legislation which may give more scope to public taste?

Mr. Callaghan: If it represented public taste, I would, but I find that a very subjective question. On the whole, matters like taste seem to change from generation to generation.

Sir G. Nabarro: While expressing myself wholly in sympathy with the view of the Home Secretary, may I ask him to have some regard to the strongly expressed view of 60 of my hon. Friends and myself, and one right hon. Gentleman opposite, in Motion No. 407 on public decency and the Arts Council, placed on the Order Paper of the House during the last three days?

[That this House rejects the recommendations of Lord Goodman's working party of the Arts Council chat the statutes of 1959 and 1964 (Obscene Publications) and 1968 (Theatres) should be repealed; and calls for the reasonable safeguard of public decency inherent in these statutes to be retained.]

Mr. Callaghan: I shall be very happy to read that Motion in due course.

Seebohm Report

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that some local authorities are continuing with changes which will make implementation of the Seebohm Report more difficult, he will now introduce legislation to prevent such changes being put into effect until the Government's decision on the Report has been announced; and if he will hasten to make this announcement.

Mr. Callaghan: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Mr. E. Rowlands) on 14th July,


the Government will reach and announce their decisions on the Seebohm Report as soon as possible. Meanwhile, it is unwise for local authorities to take action that might subsequently prove to be incompatible with those decisions.—[Vol. 787, c. 16.]

Mr. Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend consider some reinforcement of the advice he has just given, possibly by the issue of a circular, so that people may anticipate what the Government may do in the matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I have sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, but I hope that the Governments decision can be announced in the near future. I took the opportunity of a meeting with local authority associations only this week on another matter to remind them of the opinion I have given the House this afternoon.

Mr. Fortescue: Would the Home Secretary accept that the present action by the Association of Child Care Officers in recommending its members not to apply for jobs with local authorities where organisations contrary to Seebohm are being introduced is regrettable and should be forestalled as soon as possible?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that the best way of forestalling it is for the Government to announce their decision, but I am aware that opinion amongst child care officers is running very high on this subject, and it is important that we should make a statement. I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security and myself to be able to do so in the next month, at any rate.

Adoption Laws

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to reform the adoption laws.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to announce proposals for a review of the law relating to adoption and fostering.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing public concern with the operation of the law

relating to adoption and fostering; and what steps he proposes to take to protect children from conflicts between their natural parents and foster parents.

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he now expects to set up a review of the law relating to adoption; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided to appoint a committee to consider the law, policy and procedure on the adoption of children and what changes are desirable. The chairman of the committee will be Sir William Houghton. I will, with permission, circulate a list of the members in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
It is our intention that the review should include such issues as whether relatives should be able to apply for guardianship instead of adoption, the relation between adoption law and that part of guardianship law which gives the natural father of an illegitimate child the right to apply for custody, and, in particular, the position of long-term foster parents who wish to keep a child permanently, by adoption or otherwise, against the wishes of the natural parents.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I say on behalf of hon. Members on both sides how much we welcome the prospect of the appointment of an impartial inquiry to investigate the extremely complex social, legal and emotional problems involved in the adoption laws? Would the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, commit himself so far in advance as to say that he agrees that in these cases the golden rule to be applied is that the interests of the child should always be paramount?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I would accept that view, although I obviously do not wish to commit the committee if it wishes to come to a different conclusion. That has certainly guided me up to the moment.

Mr. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the committee's method of working? Will it sit in public, take evidence in public, or what?

Mr. Callaghan: The Home Office has been collecting information for the last


two years through a research body. That information will be made available to the committee. It will be for the committee to decide whether or not it sits in public. It will certainly wish to take evidence of a written character, and it will be for the committee itself to decide whether to take oral evidence.

Mr. Montgomery: Can the Home Secretary say when the committee will start its deliberations? Has he any idea when it will report?

Mr. Callaghan: I hope that it will start quickly, and as the research team at the Home Office can, as a result of the work that is done, put a lot of information before the committee, I would hope that the committee would not be unduly long in reporting.

Mr. Archer: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement, but will he consider the advisability of making any change in the law retrospective so that some of the existing tragic instances may be reviewed?

Mr. Callaghan: I will draw that point to the committee's attention. It will then be for the committee to consider whether or not it wishes to say anything on it.

Following is the list:

Chairman

Sir William Houghton, Education Officer of the Inner London Education Authority.

Members

Mr. Leo Abse, M.P.

Mr. W. K. Angus, Clerk to the Reading Justices.

Mrs. M. E. Bramall, J.P., Director of the National Council for the Unmarried Mother and her Child.

Sheriff Substitute W. J. Bryden, Sheriff Court of Lanarkshire.

Dr. Christine Cooper, O.B.E., Consultant Paediatrician, Member of the Medical Group of the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption.

Mrs. I. Goodacre, Assistant Children's Officer, Oxfordshire, and author of "Adoption Policy and Practice".

Mrs. H. Halpin, J.P., General Secretary of the National Children Adoption Association.

The Very Reverend Canon P. Harvey, Administrator of the Crusade of Rescue and Chairman of the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption.

Mr. P. Hughes, D.S.C., Children's Officer, Greenwich.

Miss J. T. Lusk, Director of The Guild of Service, Edinburgh.

Miss E. M. Magness, Secretary, Church of England Committee for Diocesan Moral and Social Welfare Councils.

Councillor Mrs. D. K. Mitchell, Glamorgan County Council.

Miss J. Rowe, Tutor to the Standing Conference of Societies Registered for Adoption and author of "Parents, Children and Adoption".

His Honour Judge F. A. Stockdale, Ilford County Court.

Dr. F. H. Stone, Consultant Child Psychiatrist, Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow.

Dame Joan Vickers, D.B.E., M.P.

Mr. D. T. White, Deputy Children's Officer, Lancashire.

Assessors

Home Office:

Mr. D. H. Morrell (with Mr. A. D. Gordon-Brown as alternate).

Miss J. D. Cooper.

Social Work Services Group, Scotland:

Miss P. A. Cox (with Mr. A. W. M. Heggie as alternate).

Miss M. M. McInnes.

Joint Secretaries

Home Office:

Miss M. M. Peck.

Mrs. P. Roberts.

Road Fund Licences (Prosecutions)

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motorists were prosecuted for not having valid road fund licences during the past 12 months.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: There were 66,264 persons in England and Wales during 1968.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is not a very great number in relation to licences issued, but it may be the tip of the iceberg. I admit to having driven a car for weeks with an invalid licence, and in that time no one questioned me. Will the Home Office consider either allowing traffic wardens themselves to seek out cases of out-of-date licences, or involving stiffer penalties?

Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his candour, and I know that he will applaud the fact that whereas in 1963 32,666 people were prosecuted, practically double that number were prosecuted in 1968.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the G.L.C. has admitted that


it has taken as much as two years for it to get cases to court; that then, after two years, only very nominal fines of £5 or £10 have been imposed; and that then some offenders never pay the fine or the licence fee, and so go on for years? Could not more positive action be taken? The present situation is an incentive for some people.

Mr. Morgan: I am glad that my hon Friend has at last appreciated that these prosecutions are for the licensing authorities—the county councils and county borough councils. He will be aware that, on average, the Metropolitan police report about 14,000 of these cases to the licensing authorities every month.

Constitutional Commission

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will seek to amend the terms of reference of the Constitutional Commission so as to obtain an interim report or reports within the next 12 months.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. But it will be open to the Commission to present an interim report at any time, if it thinks this desirable.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say how the commission is going, and whether or not it has decided to issue an interim report? In view of prospect of a protracted inquiry, an interim report would seem desirable.

Mr. Callaghan: I have not had conversations recently with the chairman, so I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's supplementary question. But, if he wishes me to, I will inquire, and let him know.

Sir D. Renton: When the Home Secretary refers to the possibility of an interim report being published, can he say what he envisaged it might cover?

Mr. Callaghan.: No, Sir. I do not know, in fact, whether the commission intends to present one.

Noise Nuisance (Prosecution)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions were instituted by

persons aggrieved under Section 99 of the Public Health Act, 1936 as amended by Section 1(2)(a) of the Noise Abatement Act, 1960 during the last period of 12 months for which figures are available.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: There was none in 1968.

Mr. Archer: Is not this conclusive evidence that, for reasons of expenditure or otherwise, people are reluctant to avail themselves of this remedy? Is not this a further example of the need to take out of the files the 1963 Report of the Wilson Committee on noise and reissue it.

Mr. Morgan: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the impression that I am unduly unsympathetic, but any change in the law is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Approved Schools

Mr. Christopher: Price asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to enable parents to withdraw their children from religious instruction in approved schools in the same way as they can in other schools.

Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. Wherever practicable, a child is placed in a school of the religious persuasion to which he belongs; and in other cases it would be contrary to the approved schools rules to require a child to receive religious instruction otherwise than in his own faith.

Mr. Price: May I thank the Home Secretary for moving the child of one of my constituents from one approved school to another? But does he not think it is unsatisfactory that children under the statutory school-leaving age in approved schools run by some religious authority or another should not have a statutory right to be withdrawn and that the matter is simply left to informal arrangements?

Mr. Callaghan: This is the only complaint that I can trace for a very long time. Therefore, I would not feel it necessary to propose amending legislation when, as my hon. Friend has graciously indicated, it is possible to meet the concern by transferring the child.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the appropriate qualifications for teachers in approved schools; and what percentage of such teachers have these qualifications.

Mr. Callaghan: There are no statutory requirements, but 99 per cent. of full-time teachers in approved schools in England and Wales possess the qualifications needed for the status of a qualified teacher.

Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am somewhat puzzled by that reply? Could he be slightly more specific about the qualifications to which he is referring?

Mr. Callaghan: I am referring to the qualifications that a person needs in order to be recognised as a teacher. I am sorry that I cannot find it here, but I promise my hon. Friend that there is a very good definition that I shall be happy to send to him.

Mr. Price: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on a suitable occasion.

Anguilla

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent changes of police personnel have been made in the force seconded to Anguilla.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: Since 1st June, 1969, 40 police officers have returned from Anguilla and 48 police officers and one civilian have been posted there.

Mr. Lewis: Can the Minister say whether the police are enjoying this opportunity to indulge in overseas service? Can he say what is now their relationship with the local population, whether the police are training some of the population to do the police job themselves in due course and for how long this will continue?

Mr. Morgan: These are fascinating questions but they are basically questions which fall to the lot of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by virtue of his powers under the Police (Overseas Service) Act, 1945.

Drugs

Mrs. Renée: Short asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that large quantities of Chinese heroin are being smuggled into the United Kingdom, what action he is taking to locate the point of entry and those responsible for its sale and distribution.

Mr. Callaghan: Traffic in this drug seems largely to be centred on London. While I do not accept all the implications of the Question, both the police and the Customs and Excise are fully alert to the dangers, and all possible lines of inquiry are being followed.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very grave concern at the apparent ease with which large quantities of this disgraceful adulterated drug can be brought into the country, with the tragic effects of which the House is aware? The fact that it is sold apparently at prices about one-quarter of the ordinary price of heroin on the black market makes it even more available to young people, and surely this ought to be a matter of very great concern to the Department? Does my right hon. Friend think that he has enough people in the drug squad, and will he keep an urgent eye on this matter?

Mr. Callaghan: I think my whole approach to the subject is known to the House. I am very careful about this matter as some of the reports that have appeared have, on the information available to me—I have questioned the police about this—been exaggerated. There have been this year some seizures of heroin from Hong Kong seamen arriving at London docks, but T. can assure the House that no one is lax about this matter in view of the dreadful consequences which can flow from it.

Mr. Deedes: Arising from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the reports, can he tell us whether we have any international means of discussing this matter with these various quarters?

Mr. Callaghan: I suppose it would be possible for us to take the matter up with the Hong Kong authorities and I will consider that, but, on the other hand, I think smuggling by seamen is a traditional venture and it would be one that


would be difficult for any authorities to stamp out except by normal police methods.

Commonwealth Immigrants

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigrants from India, Pakistan and Kenya arrived in this country in May and June, 1969 with a work permit; how many dependants of immigrants arrived in the same period; and how many of either category left this country permanently in the same period, voluntarily or otherwise.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As the reply contains a number of figures I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman agree that the figure for dependants coming in during the last two months has been extremely high and that the time has come to take another look at the existing situation to see what can be done to bring down the flow?

Mr. Rees: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that in the first five months of 1969 the number of dependants fell by 20 per cent.

Mr. Howie: Is my hon. Friend aware that among some of our community relations departments there is a feeling that the Home Office is applying the rules with undue rigour? Will my hon. Friend undertake to look at all applications for entry of immigrants' dependants with his well-known personal sympathy?

Mr. Rees: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are rules to be followed. The present Government introduced the Immigration Appeals Act, which will come into force probably in the early part of next year. It is a great liberalising Act in this sense.

The following is the available information:

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION ADMISSIONS IN MAY, 1969



Employment voucher holders
Dependants


Citizens of India
119
1,190


Citizens of Pakistan
39
1,582


Citizens of Kenya
—
39

Special voucher holders
Dependants


United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa
140
408


Notes:


1. The figures of dependants include dependants of immigrants who came to this country earlier.


2. Figures for June are not yet available.


3. Corresponding figures for Commonwealth citizens leaving the United Kingdom permanently are not available.

Police Recruitment

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the rate of recruiting in the police force is sufficient to meet wastage; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: During the first five months of 1969 recruiting in England and Wales has exceeded wastage by 503.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is no problem of recruiting to the police if he will only give permission to chief constables to raise their targets? Is not this the best way to combat the rising crime rate in this country?

Mr. Callaghan: I am not wholly sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. If proper standards are to be maintained the police will have to be very competitive to get the recruits they need. They need about 7,500 this year to produce the increase in strength that I want of 2,000. They have got 500 towards the 2,000, so there is plenty of way to go yet.

Parliamentary Constituencies

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary State for the Home Department what, studies have been made by his Department to determine the maximum size of a Parliamentary constituency, taking into account population and area, to be represented by one Member of Parliament.

Mr. Callaghan: Sufficient guidance is given in the Redistribution of Seats Acts, 1949 and 1958.

Mr. Speed: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he considers to be the maximum that can be fairly represented in this House and properly served by one Member of Parliament?

Mr. Wellbeloved: It depends on the Member.

Mr. Callaghan: I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply.

Mr. Hogg: Will not the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the attack on the criteria that he has just defended coming from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in The Times this morning?

Mr. Callaghan: I thought that The Times, for the first time since the controversy began, had a fair and impartial statement of the position by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speed: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consulations he had with outside bodies, individuals or organisations before introducing the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: None, Sir.

Mr. Speed: In view of the recent remarks made about the timing of the implementation of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals by a noble Lady who is a member of that Commission, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would have been sensible to discuss this matter with outside bodies before calling in the Redcliffe-Maud Commission as an excuse to delay redistribution.

Mr. Callaghan: I have little doubt that if the programme of the Redcliffe-Maud proposals is carried through—I believe from an examination of the timetable that it would be possible for this to be done in a reasonable period of time—the Bill which I have introduced will be entirely vindicated.

Mr. Hogg: Does not the Home Secretary recognise that the account which he has now described as impartial and correct repudiates the Redcliffe-Maud Report as an excuse for the Bill and attacks the Boundary Commissions' criteria which the right hon. Gentleman has previously defended?

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is seeking to reply for the Minister.

Mr. Foot: Since it is evident that the intervention by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)

misrepresents the letter in today's The Times, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the letter to be printed in full in HANSARD.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; I undertake to do that as a statement following the answer which I have just given.

Mr. Speed: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the two replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any precedent for a letter from a private Member printed in The Times being published in HANSARD by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker would require notice of such an erudite question.
At the end of Questions—

Mr. Rippon: On a point of order. Further to the point of order raised during Question Time by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), would you, Mr. Speaker, consider giving a Ruling at a suitable opportunity on the circumstances in which Ministers can write into the record the private correspondence or speeches of other hon. Members? would be grateful if my speech on the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill in Hexham could be written into the record; it is very different in tone and content from the letter which appears in The Times from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

Mr. Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman can persuade the Home Secretary to write his speech into the record, I am sure the world will be edified. It is for the Home Secretary to decide what quotations he makes in the record. I did advise the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) some time ago that this was a very erudite question which I would have to have time to consider.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order. May I ask, through you, Mr. Speaker, whether I was right in assuming that the Home Secretary was jesting when he made the suggestion?

Mr. Speaker: I have a shadow of a suspicion of an idea that that might be So.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I quite appreciate the sensitivity of the Opposition about the letter to The Times of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), if it would meet with the general convenience of the House I would be delighted to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Sandys: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker, can you give a Ruling? Is there no limit to what Ministers can have written into the OFFICIAL REPORT, however irrelevant?

Mr. Speaker: I hope the right hon. Gentleman heard what the Home Secretary said. The Home Secretary was saying that if it were the wish of the House—and it is apparently not the wish of the whole House—he would be prepared to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he regards as a valuable letter appearing in The Times newspaper.

Hon. Members: Vote.

Several Hon. Members: rose —

Mr. Speaker: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was asking for the wishes of the House. I think that some hon. Members think that it would be a good thing for the letter to be circulated and others think it would be a bad thing.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I advise hon. Members that I can take only one point of order at a time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. Have you not yourself, Mr. Speaker, and previous Speakers, given a Ruling that Ministers are themselves responsible for the replies which they give, and if the Home Secretary feels that it is wise to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a reply which he thinks is an answer to the Question, is not he entitled to do so? We have always been told that a Minister is responsible for how he replies and what he puts into HANSARD. If the Home Secretary wishes to do that,

is not it with in his powers, and, with great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, that not even you or the House can decide but that it is the Minister who has to decide?

Mr. Speaker: The House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his sudden defence of Ministerial powers. The Minister has not indicated that his answer will consist of an extract from one of the morning newspapers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Only one point of order at once.

Mr. Shinwell: No doubt you will realise that this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. I want to ascertain whether there is any question of a Division on this issue. Why should The Times get preferential treatment? Do you realise, Sir, that The Times is obtaining a cheap advertisement from all this discussion? Before the letter is inserted in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I should like to know whether The Times will pay the usual advertising fees.

Mr. Speaker: I think we might get on with the serious business. We have, I imagine, quite a lot of serious business.

R.S.P.C.A. Officers (Firearms)

Mr. Brooks: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that officers of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals travel about the country armed with guns with which they are entitled to shoot animals on the spot; and, in view of the potential danger to the public, whether he will introduce legislation to end this practice.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: An officer of the R.S.P.C.A. has no special dispensation from the requirements of the Firearms Act, 1968. He may not possess the humane killers provided by the Society unless he has a firearm certificate, which is granted only if the chief officer of police concerned is satisfied, inter alio, that an applicant can be permitted to have the firearm without danger to the public safety or to the peace. My right hon. Friend sees no need for any new provision.

Mr. Brooks: Is it not slightly disconcerting that several hundred heavy


calibre 0·32 weapons are in the hands of inspectors throughout the country? In view of the obvious risk that these weapons might fall into criminal hands, would it not be more sensible if the inspectors were supplied with the relatively safe but effective incapacitating device which many veterinary surgeons use?

Mr. Morgan: The 0·32 calibre Webley and Scott pistols are in the hands of only those inspectors to whom a firearms certificate has been issued. I am not aware that there is any reason to suppose that firearms held by R.S.P.C.A. officers constitute a source of danger to the public.

Prevention of Crime (Hidden Television Cameras)

Mr. Taney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions the police research and development branch has reached from its study of the reports from various police forces on the use of hidden television cameras for the prevention of crime in urban communities.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The results so far are inconclusive.

Mr. Tilney: Whatever may be thought about "Big Brother looking on", does not the Minister agree that the fear of being found out deters many criminals, and should not every possible modern gadget be used to try to reduce crime?

Mr. Morgan: The theory proposed by the hon. Gentleman seems sound, but the pattern which emerged from the experiments was in no way a consistent one.

Electoral Register

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, why no advice has been given to electoral registration officers as to where young persons in full-time education at school or university should be registered.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: A memorandum of guidance, dealing with this among other matters, was issued to electoral registration officers on 22nd July. In accordance with my undertaking given on 2nd July, copies have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that when the electoral register is compiled in October, 1969 all persons in dwellings in multiple occupancy are included.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Form A, the form sent to householders in connection with the canvass for the electoral register, includes a question specifically designed to elicit whether in any promises there are separate households which need to be approached. Attention is specially drawn to this in the memorandum of guidance issued by the Home Office to electoral registration officers.

Mr. Hooley: Multiple occupancy is often a characteristic of student lodgings. Since the qualifying age at elections is now reduced to 18, could not further steps be taken to ensure that a proper, full register is compiled?

Mr. Rees: I can only advise my hon. Friend that under Section 7 of the 1969 Act it is the general duty of a registration officer to take reasonable steps to obtain information requited by him for the purpose. It is his statutory responsibility.

Extremist Groups and Militant Organisations (Wales)

Mr. Fred Evans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will obtain a report from the chief constables of police forces in Wales regarding connections between extremist groups and militant organisations there; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Callaghan: Chief constables in Wales are keeping a close watch on, and keeping me informed of, any activities which may result in violence; but it would not be in the public interest for me to say more at present.

Mr. Evans: There is a great sense of shock in Wales over recent acts of violence and, in particular, the tragic injuries to a small boy. Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that it is becoming a matter of national honour to many Welshmen that the people who are guilty of these outrages should be brought to book and that those who may give aid and comfort to them should be exposed?

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir; my hon. Friend expresses the feelings of the people


of Wales as I and many others know them. I promise him that no effort will be spared to try to trace the authors of these crimes of violence.

Professor Ralph H. Abraham

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a deportation order on Professor Ralph Herman Abraham, a visiting American professor at Warwick University, in view of the fact that he was fined £150 by Coventry magistrates for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act, entailing scooping out a library volume, filling it with cannabis resin and posting it to Western Germany.

Mr. Callaghan: When Mr. Abraham was convicted on 8th July, he told the court that he intended to return to the United States in about a month's time. He was not recommended for deportation by the court, and, if he honours his statement of intention I should not find it necessary to make a deportation order.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT STATISTICAL SERVICES

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for improving and increasing the quality and quantity of Government statistical services, especially those relating to regional policies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): The Government's statistical services are being very considerably extended and strengthened. Many of the developments have already been described in  Statistical News; and I hope that it may be possible to publish, later this year, a more comprehensive report on progress and plans.

Mr. Hamilton: Hon. Members greatly appreciate the considerable improvement in the production of regional statistics, but will my right hon. Friend take the matter further, since the Government's record on regional policy since 1964 is extremely impressive?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend would let me know of any further figures which he thinks should be made available, I shall be glad to do what I can to ensure that they are.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the Prime Minister look into the question why the statistics given by the Postmaster-General for the time of delivery of first-class mail bear no relation to the experiences of anyone in the West Country?

The Prime Minister: The Question relates to Government statistical services. I shall be glad to look into any question which the hon. Gentleman cares to send me so that I can see why the experience of himself and others in the West Country seems not to tally with the figures which are available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Ministry of Overseas Development within the Government's foreign policy.

The Prime Minister: The functions of the Ministry remain exactly as stated to the House on 10th November, 1964 by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, the then Minister of Overseas Development.

Mr. Judd: Is it not sobering to reflect that, while our gross national product rose by 60 per cent. or £15,000 million since 1961, the net cost of our overseas aid programme has decreased from £151 million to £150 million during the same period? Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that in their future plans for public expenditure the Government will move steadily towards fulfilment of the 1 per cent. U.N.C.T.A.D. target?

The Prime Minister: I have answered Questions on this many times in the past, and particularly with regard to the 1 per cent. My hon. Friend will be aware that the matter is kept continuously under review in each review of Government expenditure. I should have thought that he would feel that the fact that so many things had to be cut back last year while the aid programme was not cut back in sterling terms showed the high priority which we give to this programme.

Mr. Tilney: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that taxpayers' money could be saved if private enterprise investment


could be stimulated in developing countries and that this requires some form of political insurance?

The Prime Minister: I know that this is a matter to which a great deal of thought has been given in the past. There has been a quite welcome increase in private enterprise investment in some of the developing countries, though I think that the problem which successive Governments have had is that far more of it has gone to already developed countries rather than to those where the need for investment in world terms is greatest.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what further discussions he intends to have with the Trade Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry concerning industrial relations.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply on 17th July to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).—[Vol. 787, c. 875–6.]

Mr. Molloy: Now that the T.U.C. has decided to intervene in industrial disputes where trade unions are involved, could my right hon. Friend ask the C.B.I. to intervene where disputes are caused by arbitrary managerial action, and, further, does he agree that the mass media, which could contribute to the restoration of industrial harmony by fair reporting, should drop some of their biased attitudes towards trade union disputes?

The Prime Minister: When we met the C.B.I. just over a month ago, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State and I emphasised the need for the Confederation to take powers to intervene in cases of the kind my hon. Friend has in mind, just as the T.U.C. was taking powers itself to intervene. We encouraged the Confederation also to re-examine the proposals made to it by the T.U.C. for joint fire-fighting services for dealing with unofficial disputes.
As regards the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, that must he a matter for the information media themselves, be they Press or tele-

vision. There have in the past, no doubt, been some cases of unfair reporting, but in cases where there has been a dispute which was quite unjustified it has not done any harm that this should be made generally known both nationally and in the area concerned.

Mr. John Page: During his discussions with the C.B.I., will the Prime Minister confirm that the First Secretary's undertaking that no penal clauses will be included in any industrial relations legislation during the lifetime, of the present Government applies equally to companies as to trade unions?

The Prime Minister: In any further discussions with the C.B.I. —these will be conducted mainly by the First Secretary—my right hon. Friend will stand exactly by what she said and what I said to the House in the debate.

Mr. James Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend agree that since the Government got the T.U.C. to move in the direction in which it is moving it is carrying out a very responsible task? Would he further agree that meetings similar to the one which he had with the T.U.C. should be held with the C.B.I. unilaterally and then collectively with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. with a view to getting industrial relations on the basis for which we are all hoping?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend and I met the C.B.I. on, I think, the day after the undertaking was given by the T.U.C. But I think that the whole House would want to see both sides get together without necessarily the intervention of the Government. Useful work has been done by them on a bilateral basis, and the whole T.U.C. document and certain statements by the C.B.I. and the concept of the Commission for Industrial Relations are all based on the two sides of industry getting together on their own to improve negotiating procedures.

Mr. R. Carr: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made publicly that the legislation which we are promised next Session will contain no penalties?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman had better wait to see the legislation, and then we can discuss it in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (ASIAN SECURITY SYSTEM)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with Commonwealth heads of government about the effect on Commonwealth countries of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' proposed new Asian security system.

The Prime Minister: We are in continuing contact on such matters with the Commonwealth Governments concerned, through diplomatic channels.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Prime Minister seen the important Izvestia article which speaks of a vacuum of power in the Indian Ocean and Mr. Gromyko's statement to the Supreme Soviet that Russia is now ready to join with Asian states in building a security system? Since these developments vitally affect British interests, does he not think that they may be the result of the Government's policy of scuttle and run from East of Suez?

The Prime Minister: Taking, as I always do, the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question seriously—I shall come to the last part in a moment—I am grateful to him for drawing my attention to the Izvestia article, which I shall study. But, in addition to Mr. Gromyko's speech to the Supreme Soviet on 10th July, there was the basic speech by Mr. Brezhnev. I would interpret the Russian's concern and what they are saying on this matter to have been motivated not by the very wise decisions of Her Majesty's Government in that area but by their fear of the growing power of China.

Mr. Richard: Would my right hon. Friend go a little further and say that in his opinion, and in the estimates of the Government, as long as the Soviet Union and China continue to pursue their present course the interest of the Soviet Union in Asia is primarily one of stability rather than the opposite and that any proposals by Russia about an Asian security conference or arrangement should be looked at by us and the West generally very seriously indeed?

The Prime Minister: That is a difficult matter to deal with at Question Time. It is more appropriate for debate. I remember some debates on this point

between the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and myself several years ago. There is reason to think that not only in Asia but in Africa the Soviet Union has reason to fear growing intervention by China. If the Soviet Government have anything concrete to put forward which we could examine—so far everything that they have said has been in general terms—we shall be glad to examine it to see whether there is anything which can be done mutually to bring security in Africa and in Asia, just as we are ready to discuss with them their proposals for European security.

Mr. Heath: Is it not difficult for Mr. Brezhnev or the Prime Minister to say that a vacuum has been created by the growing power of China?

The Prime Minister: I did not use that phrase. I think that it came from the other side of the House. Mr. Brezhnev may or may not have used it. I am not answerable for Mr. Brezhnev. He cannot be questioned by hon. Members, would assume, not having seen the full original text, that what he was saying was that where there is a vacuum of an ideological kind the Chinese are very quick to fill it. That is the serious point which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would wish to reflect upon.

Mr. Heath: Is it not a serious point that the British Government are creating the only vacuum in the Far East and that is the one which the Soviet Government are seeking to step into?

The Prime Minister: The right hon Gentleman is quite wrong. It is a totally fanciful extension of anything that even he has said to suggest that anything which any British Government could do in that area would be capable of meeting either the military or the ideological and permeating threat of China.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely my right hon. Friend does not suggest that, for example. the provision of vast quantities of arms from the Russians to the Arab States is not due to their fear of China but is attributable to their desire to intervene in any part of the world where they can cause trouble?

The Prime Minister: Yes, but I was dealing with a Question which referred


to an Asian security system, and, although it is certainly true that what we call the Middle East is known to India and other countries as West Asia, the context of the speeches by Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Brezhnev was in terms of South-East and Far East Asia, not the Middle East, which raises very different considerations, as my right hon. Friend has often made clear in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister what communications he had with President Nixon about joint Anglo-American policies towards Eastern Europe before the latter's decision to visit Roumania.

The Prime Minister: I had a full discussion of East-West relations with President Nixon when he visited London on February, and we have since exchanged various messages on the subject.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Prime Minister recall the President's pledge that he would consult his N.A.T.O. allies before, during and after any negotiations with the Soviet bloc? Can the right hon. Gentleman say quite categorically whether he knew of the visit to Rumania before it was announced? If not, when he comes to Mildenhall in my constituency next week, will he say to the President while the aeroplane is fuelling that he feels that the British Government should be better informed?

The Prime Minister: Of course I look forward to visiting the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The second point of his supplementary question falls to the ground because categorically, as he said, I was informed in advance by President Nixon of this visit and his other visits, and so was N.A.T.O.
With regard to the discussions on a strategic arms limitation, I answered Questions about this the other day when I said that very detailed discussions were taking place on this matter in the North Atlantic Council and that we played a leading part in those discussions.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will my right hon. Friend ask the President next week to support the Finnish proposal for a European security conference, with

American participation, in Helsinki, which is supported by the Rumanians and many other countries? Could he give us an indication of his reply to President Kekkonen's proposal?

The Prime Minister: I dealt with this in Questions last week and the week before, following my talks in Sweden with the Finnish Prime Minister and others. I said that I thought that two of the obstacles to such a conference seemed to be disappearing or diminishing. One related to American participation, and it is clear that the East European countries are prepared to agree to that. The other was a problem about thee two Germanys, and I thought that Herr Willi Brandt in Harpsund was extremely helpful. We still would feel that it was necessary to make adequate preparation to ensure that such a security conference is not a place for shouting slogans at one another, but likely to get to grins with the real problems of European security.

Sir T. Beamish: Since we are cosignatories with the United States, to the Rumanian, Bulgarian and Hungarian peace treaties, and of the Yalta agreement which affects Poland, will the Prime Minister give the House an assurance that we have a clear understanding with the United States about our joint attitudes to the occupied countries?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that anything which comes out of President Nixon's visit to Rumania—and he will come straight from there to this country—which has a bearing on this question will be adequately discussed.

Mr. Brooks: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent proposals made by Mr. Gomulka for a bilateral treaty between Western Germany and Poland to legalise the Oder-Neisse frontier? In view of the possible bearing that this might have on Western Germany's right at a future German peace conference, will he undertake to discuss with President Nixon the possibility that the Western Powers might give a favourable sign towards this proposal?

The Prime Minister: There is no change in our position on the question of frontier recognition, which we have always said is a matter for determination in the negotiation of an ultimate peace treaty. Without building too much on


what has happened, we all welcome what Mr. Gomulka has said, and it has been welcomed also by the German Government. The House will have noted with great interest, although it has received little publicity, the very successful visit of the Lord Mayor of Berlin to Poland, when some of these matters were obviously discussed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House kindly say whether he has a business statement to make?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I intend to propose that the House should adjourn tomorrow, Friday, 25th July, until Monday, 13th October. The necessary Motion will be tabled today and will be taken as first business tomorrow.
On a further matter in which there is wide interest, may I say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary proposes to table today Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, which will not be proceeded with before the Recess.

Mr. Heath: With the Leader of the House kindly say when the business for the first week after the Recess will be announced?

Mr. Peart: I will do it as soon as possible. I cannot be precise about the date, but I will see that all hon. Members are promptly informed.

Mr. Michael Foot: May I take it from the Leader of the House that the postponement of the discussion of the Amendments to the Bill made in another place is being made precisely to enable hon. Members to have sufficient time to study my letter in The Times?

Mr. Grimond: Now that this important matter is to be put off during the Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Prime Minister to take advantage of the delay, since everyone is now convinced about the iniquity of gerrymandering, to see whether it is possible to arrange an all-party conference to decide how it can be got rid of in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Peart: Northern Ireland is not concerned in any matter that I am announcing today. I would have thought that the long Recess would enable even the right hon. Gentleman to be cautious about the words that he chooses.

Mr. Driberg: In view of the fact that more than 20 Questions down for reply by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister were not reached today, and in view of the increasingly educative and encyclopaedic nature of the Prime Minister's replies, will my right hon. Friend consider amending the Standing Order after the Recess so that we can have a little more time with the Prime Minister?

Mr. Peart: I will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As legislation which, among other things, seeks to indemnify the Home Secretary for his breach of his statutory duty under the Act of 1949 is not now to be proceeded with for some months, can the House take it that the right hon. Gentleman will now do his duty under the Statute and lay the necessary Orders?

Mr. Peart: I know that the right hon. Gentleman speaks with great authority, but I would not say necessarily that his view is right. I think that what I have announced is the right course at this stage.

Mr. Frank Allaun: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the other place has made three Amendments to the Housing Bill which are very damaging to the interests of tenants—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman can ask a business Question, but he cannot discuss the merits of anything at the moment.

Mr. Allaun: This is strictly business. One of them has been put right, but two have not, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if there will be an opportunity today or tomorrow to remedy these grave injustices—

Mr. Speaker: Order. They are on the Order Paper for today, I think.

Mr. Peart: You are quite right, Mr. Speaker. They are on the Order Paper, and we will have an opportunity to vote on them.

Mr. Costain: Can the Leader of the House say whether there will be time for the usual Summer Adjournment debates before the House rises tomorrow?

Mr. Peart: Tomorrow, yes.

Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that it is the view of most of his colleagues that it is a good idea to put off discussion of the proposed boundary changes to allow the unelected Chamber three months to cool down and come to its senses?

Mr. Peart: This affords time for reflection, of course.

Mr. Hogg: Are we to take it that the Government are having second thoughts about their iniquitous behaviour in this matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate now what apparently we shall be debating some time ahead. We are on business questions.

Mr. Emery: Will the Leader of the House turn his mind to his statement, which has meant the reorganisation of business for today? As we are not taking the Lords Amendments to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No.2) Bill, we find that the Development of Tourism Bill is the first Order of Day. Does he realise that this House did not know yesterday whether their Lordships had or had not put Clause 17 into the Bill—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Discussion of the Lords Amendments to the Development of Tourism Bill will take place at some time during the day. We cannot discuss now the debate which we shall be having then. We are asking business questions.

Mr. Emery: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Emery. A business question.

Mr. Emery: This deals entirely with the business for today. It is because we did not know yesterday what we would be debating, since there was no Lords HANSARD to inform us, how does the right hon. Gentleman expect this House properly to conduct its business on the Development of Toursim Bill today?

Mr. Peart: I acted immediately. We only got the Bill yesterday—

Mr. Emery: That is the point. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. No backchat.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the completion of the debate on the B.B.C. which was unfinished the other day, with particular reference to my Early Day Motion No. 395 about the Scottish Symphony Orchestra?
[That this House deplores the British Broadcasting Corporation's announcement that it can no longer remain financially responsible for the British Broadcasting Corporation Scottish Symphony Orchestra and hopes that the orchestra will not be disbanded; notes that the Corporation are to consider a proposal from the Scottish Arts Council who are to be congratulated on their initiative in this matter; and calls urgently on both the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Government to give all necessary support and to take all necessary steps to save this distinguished orchestra and to maintain the study and exposition of its splendid work without which Scottish aesthetics and in particular music in Scotland would be significantly impoverished.]

Mr. Peart: I have noted my hon. and learned Friend's Motion and, as always, I applaud his energy and diligence in this matter. However, there was an opportunity. He must keep pressing Ministers.

Mr. Marten: Is the tight hon. Gentleman aware of the slightly unsatisfactory way in which tomorrow's business has been handled? Can he say when the subjects for debate on the Adjournment will be announced? Secondly, will the Motion to adjourn be tabled tomorrow morning after Questions at 12 o'clock, and can the debate on it run on until 4 o'clock, thereby keeping out all the debates on the Adjournment?

Mr. Peart: The Motion can be taken. It is not an unusual list. There are ample precedents. This has happened before.

Mr. Rose: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 423 relating to the situation in Londonderry, which already has been


signed by 88 hon. Members? In view of the impending Recess, would my right hon. Friend undertake that the Cabinet will keep a firm watch on this very serious situation and, if necessary, report to this House?
[That this House, recognising the highly critical situation in Londonderry and understanding the underlying grievances, calls for full support of the responsible leadership of the Civil Rights Movement in Northern Ireland; urges the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland to take all the steps necessary to secure peace and justice in Northern Ireland; and calls for the following immediate steps: the presence of Home Office observers in Northern Ireland, and tile withdrawal of the Ulster Special Constabulary from Londonderry and its environs.]

Mr. Peart: I have noted carefully the terms of the Motion. The actual withdrawal of the Special Ulster Constabulary is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government, but I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will it be possible to have an early debate or chat on the extemely important recommendations put forward by the House of Commons Services Committee on measures to enable hon. Members to discharge their functions more efficiently?

Mr. Peart: This is an important matter. As Chairman of the Services Committee, I am anxious that a statement should be made on this, and there will be opportunities, of course, even tomorrow. There is a question for Written Answer down to me. But I would like to consider this very sympathetically.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services be making a statement on implementing the Seebohm Report, which he promised to do before the long Recess?

Mr. Peart: This was answered by my right hon. Friend during Questions.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the Leader of the House apply his mind to the Writs for the five by-elections outstanding? Does he propose to issue the Writs to-

morrow? If not, is he aware that carrying them over until 13th October or later will mean, in the case of Newcastle-under-Lyme, for example, disenfranchisement for a period of 9 months, which is surely a Parliamentary record? Why will not he issue the Writs tomorrow to fill those five seats and return Tory hon. Members for them?

Mr. Peart: The hon Gentleman's question is one that he has often raised. He knows the answer. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, not for me.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend explain how it is possible for him to answer Questions about the business for next week when there is none?

Mr. Peart: I agree. There is no business for next week.

Sir T. Beamish: On the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) (No. 2) Bill, in order that right hon. and hon. Members may have ample opportunity to study both points of view during the Recess, will the Leader of the House consider following the strange precedent set by the Home Secretary and publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the speech made in another place by the Bishop of South-wark?

Mr. Peart: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to debate this matter, he should read all the speeches in that debate.

Sir B. Janner: In view of the importation of so many dangerous wild animals as pets and the anxiety that has been caused in many parts of the country, will my right hon. Friend take steps to introduce legislation to deal with this matter? Will he particularly keep the matter in mind during the Recess, because of its importance?

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend raises a very important matter which affects a section of the community, but I cannot find time or promise legislation.

Mr. Sandys: The right hon. Gentleman avoided answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) about the by-elections by saying that this was a matter for the Patronage Secretary. But it is a matter of business that the House is entitled to ask whether the


Patronage Secretary intends to move the Writs before the House rises, in the same way as we may ask the Leader of the House whether a Minister intends to introduce a Bill. It is all part of business. In view of the importance of this matter, I do not think—

Hon. Members: Order, order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the right hon. Gentleman strays from order, I will call him to it.

Mr. Sandys: I am very sorry if I strayed from order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was protecting the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sandys: Perhaps I may continue. What I am pressing the Leader of the House to tell us is a very simple matter, and it is a matter of business, as to whether the Patronage Secretary will move the Writ before the House rises.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman has been a member of an Administration—a distinguished member—and he knows that the Leader of the House never moves it. It is a matter for the Patronage Secretary, who has heard the right hon. Gentleman's views. I do not think that he will do it tomorrow.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business ahead of us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House—and this is the third time this week—that I can take only one point of order at a time.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Would you please give a number of my hon. Friends and myself guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter that has arisen from the controversy of the last few moments? Is it not a fact that Erskine May states that any Member of the House, without notice to Mr. Speaker, may move that a Writ for the holding of a by-election be moved by Mr. Speaker that day?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that I ruled on this question—the hon. Gentleman must have missed it—10 to 14 days ago. It is possible for an hon. Member to do so.

If he does, he must let Mr. Speaker know before he proposes to do so, so that the appropriate form in which the notice is given may be followed. But it is a convention of the House that it is usually moved by Members of the party to which the late Member or the Member who has vacated the seat, belonged. It is as simple as that.

Sir G. Nabarro: rose
—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman might look up the Ruling. I have ruled very clearly. We are on business questions.

Sir G. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. You have kindly instructed me, Mr. Speaker, that the Member should give Mr. Speaker notice in the matter. As the House is due to rise tomorrow for more than 10 weeks, would you consider it adequate notice if I gave you notice in writing today that the by-election—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must understand what I have said. He must come to Mr. Speaker. He must consult Mr. Speaker. He must get the notice that he seeks to move in the correct form, and on this Mr. Speaker will advise him.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentlemen who are willing to advise Mr. Speaker must wait. The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) can come to Mr. Speaker, who will advise him on the appropriate form. But I would remind him of a convention which has existed for I do not know how many years—I do not know how many centuries. The notice of a vacancy and the appropriate setting in motion of a by-election is given, by a convention of the House long established—and the House likes its conventions and would not wish to break them lightly—[Interruption.] Order. It is very difficult for Mr. Speaker to advise a Member on order if he is being interrupted.
The notice is usually given by Members belonging to the party which was in possession of the seat at the time the vacancy occurred.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Your Ruling a fortnight ago to which you referred, Mr. Speaker, related to a time when Parliament is in Session,


but is it not a fact that completely different circumstances arise if we are in Recess, and that according to the rules of the House if we are in Recess it is possible for two Members to apply for the Writ, a Committee of seven will be set up by you, and that Writ will have to be issued? I think that the House would accept that that would be breaking a convention, and we would be reluctant to do it, but if the Government are tardy in issuing writs in the normal, conventional way, they, not we, are risking breaking the conventions.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is on an entirely new point. I had ruled on the point put by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South—[Interruption.] Order. It is very discourteous when Mr. Speaker is ruling on a very serious matter if hon. Members seek to interrupt him.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South had been dealt with by me in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) some weeks ago. The hon. Member for Peterborough has now raised a new point which is quite an important one. According to the Statute, in times of Recess it is possible for any two hon. Members to instruct Mr. Speaker—not to advise, but to instruct him—to declare a vacancy which has happened.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder whether we might return to business questions.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: In view of the information you have just confirmed, Mr. Speaker, is it not up to the Government to avoid the breaking of a convention by acting in the conventional way?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the Government, not for Mr. Speaker. Mr. Lipton—

Mr. Lipton: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether, in order to save precious time—

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). The hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) might wait to put his point of order.

Mr. Lipton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether—

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am compelled to take the point of order, although the hon. Gentleman is interrupting another hon. Member.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I apologise for interrupting, but I apprehend that the hon. Gentleman is going on to another topic—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would still have been possible for the hon. Gentleman to allow the other hon. Member to put his question on another topic, without interrupting him on a point of order.

Mr. Lipton: In order to save precious and valuable time of the House, will the Leader of the House look at Motion No. 392, relating to excessive local government expenditure in Lambeth?
[That this House calls upon the Minister of Housing and Local Government to investigate the reasons why the London Borough of Lambeth is spending £2,011 to advertise the post of chief executive officer.]
Will he ask the Minister of Housing and Local Government to accept that Motion without debate and just get on with it?

Mr. Peart: The answer is: No, Sir. It is a matter for the local authority. It is open to the district auditor to consider whether expenditure of this kind is reasonable when he conducts his audit. I think that that is satisfactory.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Reverting to the previous subject, I completely accept the existence of the conventions which you have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, but there is one point which should be made quite clear. Am I not right in supposing that Erskine May, contrary to what you have said, states that any hon. Member can give notice of moving a Writ without notice?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member reads Erskine May he will see that it confirms the convention to which I have called the attention of the House.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Leader of the House request the Home Secretary to


make a statement clarifying the situation that will arise from holding over the Redistribution of Seats Bill until after the Recess? Since the Bill will not become law until after 15th October, when the register is compiled, it would seem that the next register will be compiled on the old basis. It would be helpful if the Home Secretary would make a statement which would help registration officers and those responsible for returns.

Mr. Peart: I do not think that there is any need for a statement. First things first; let us wait to see what the Amendments are.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of business to get through.

Dame Irene Ward: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted my Motion No. 422?
[That in the opinion of this House, the summer school for the young subversives to be held shortly at the London School of Economics should not benefit financially from the overall expenditure by the London School of Economics on rent, rates, lighting, heating, cleaning, domestic labour and other services, and no payment from the Organising Committee should be accepted in lieu thereof.]
May I have an assurance that subversion will not be made a charge on the taxpayer?

Mr. Peart: I have seen the Motion. The hon. Lady must know that that question is not for me to answer.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we can move on.

Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his decision on Redistribution Seats Bill is absolutely right? Since he is being asked to do this sort of thing, will he consider, in answer to business questions, including the independent article by Mr. David Butler in the Sunday Times, which exposes as unfounded the charges of gerrymandering?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Business questions should be real business questions.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In view of the somewhat unusual situation in which we are debating the Adjournment Motion on the last day, can my right hon. Friend say what contingency arrangements he is

making in case the House should vote against the Adjournment, and vote not to go on holiday?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member should not be so pessimistic.

MR. GERALD BROOKE (RELEASE)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
Mr. Brooke, the British subject who was sentenced by a Soviet court in 1965 to five years' imprisonment for alleged anti-Soviet activity, has been released and has returned to this country today. Her Majesty's Government have undertaken that a recommendation will be made for the remission in three months' time of the remainder of the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment which was passed on Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kroger in 1961 in connection with the Portland spy case. Upon their release Mr. and Mrs. Kroger will be free to go to any destination of their choice. We have also agreed that Polish consular officials may visit them at monthly intervals until their release.
The Consular Convention between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. provides that consular visits to British subjects in detention in the Soviet Union shall take place "on a recurrent basis". Under Soviet regulations such visits have been permitted not less frequently than once every four months; but the Soviet regulations also provide that offences against prison discipline may be punished by forfeiture of consular visits. At one time Mr. Brooke went for more than a year without a visit, and more recently Mr. Lorraine has been deprived of a consular visit. We have now been assured that even in cases where offences against prison discipline are alleged the Soviet authorities will favourably consider our request that the intervals between visits by British consular representatives should not exceed four months.
The Soviet authorities have undertaken that on the day after the departure of Mr. and Mrs. Kroger from this country Mr. Michael Parsons End Mr. Anthony Lorraine, the British subjects who in 1968 were sentenced by Soviet courts to four


and three years' detention, respectively, for smuggling drugs into the Soviet Union, will be released.
It has been arranged, as a separate matter, that three British subjects who have for some years been endeavouring without success to marry Soviet citizens will, not later than 24th October, be granted visas to enter the Soviet Union to register their marriages, and that thereafter their partners will be free to leave the Soviet Union should they so desire. We have been told that one other British subject in this category may have a Soviet visa at any time.
In deciding to make these arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have had three considerations in mind. The first is that of humanity towards Mr. Brooke. We were informed on 28th April that fresh charges, carrying very heavy penalties, were being prepared against him. His health has not been good throughout his imprisonment, and further years in prison might have had the most serious consequences.
Secondly, the Krogers will have served over 8½ years in prison. They will have paid a substantial penalty for their offences.
Thirdly, the other arrangements which I have mentioned, affecting British subjects, and consular visits, are in themselves desirable and remove an obstacle for improvement in relations between this country and the U.S.S.R.
Taking these considerations into account, and recognising the counter-arguments which can be advanced, I believe that the decision which I have announced is right.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Reaction to the Foreign Secretary's statement must be in two parts. The first is that Mr. Brooke ought never to have received such a savage sentence for a minor infringement of Soviet law and that this release is merely belated justice. It should have happened long ago. Therefore, for him and his wife, who has shown such courage, the House is unreservedly glad that his terrible ordeal is over. The second part concerns Mr. Brooke's exchange for the Krogers. They had engaged in an entirely different order and scale of espionage. This is bound to arouse public anxieties and reservations.
In the first place, the Foreign Secretary should understand that this is an encouragement to the Russians to believe that they can always squeeze Her Majesty's Government in this way. The Foreign Secretary understands, does he not, that they are not in the least inhibited from starving a man until he is ill so as to play on the feelings and humanity of the British people? Their cold and brutish behaviour is part of the Russian make-up in this matter.
Secondly, is there not a real danger that professional spies like the Krogers may not have told all that they know to Her Majesty's Government; that they may have knowledge which could still be of use to the Soviet Union concerning personnel or other matters. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the first consideration must be the morale of our own services in a most hazardous occupation?
Having said that, I must point out that the Foreign Secretary and the Government have shouldered a very heavy responsibility. I have not—and I do not think that any other hon. Member has—sufficient knowledge or information to make a considered judgment on this case. That can be done only by the Government and the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government must bear responsibility for this matter. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure the House that he has taken all these very grave matters into full account in arriving at his decision.

Mr. Stewart: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have taken very seriously into account all the arguments and counter-arguments that can be advanced. I accept that this is not a matter which any humane or sensible person would think could be decided casually or off the cuff. There are very grave considerations on both sides.
I entirely accept that although Mr. Brooke did, and this is not in dispute, something contrary to Soviet law, it was not something that we in this country would regard as an offence, and we always took the view that the penalty imposed upon him was on any judgment out of all proportion to what he had done.
I accept, too, that the position of the Krogers was very different indeed. The


right hon. Gentleman drew attention to the possible advantage there might be in that information could be obtained from the Krogers. I had to weigh this up, and it seemed to me that with every month that passed the weight of this argument became less and the weight of the argument of humanity for Mr. Brooke became greater.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that we have taken this decision very carefully, taking all the factors into account. I believe it to be the right decision both on humanitarian grounds and on the long-term judgment of relations between the Soviet Union and this country, and the security of this country.

Mr. Mendelson: One readily accepts the humanitarian motives of the Government's actions. Anyone who knows the position of Mr. Brooke and the position of his relatives will appreciate that action. At the same time, while accepting that my right hon. Friend must speak with the great reserve placed on him in his position, it should be made quite clear that here there is nothing but contempt and very grave concern for future relations with the Soviet Union as a result of this example of blackmail applied to a man who had obviously committed nothing that would be regarded as an offence in a democratic society; and that there is a very grave danger for future relations when we see the Soviet Union acting in this way. The Russians ought to be left in no doubt about the reactions of all democrats in this country, and in other countries, to the way in which they have acted.

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can at all dispute what my hon. Friend has said, but he will accept that, after he had said it, he did not feel that he could dissent from the decision which the Government had taken.

Mr. Hastings: I have two questions. First, what were the serious consequences to which the Foreign Secretary referred previously in regard to the threat to retry Brooke, and why were those not resorted to long ago to obtain his release instead of having this disgraceful and dangerous deal? Secondly, will the Foreign Secretary give an absolute assurance that no pressure has been or will be brought on Mr. Gerald Brooke by the Foreign Office to prevent him pub-

lishing, should he so wish, in due course a full and unrestricted account of the circumstances of his arrest and his treatment at Russian hands?

Mr. Stewart: We should not dream of bringing any pressure to bear on Mr Brooke. This is a free country and he can say or write what he likes. I merely express the personal opinion that I think that Mr. Brooke, after what he has been through, will probably want to relax in family life and, if I tray say so, find his feet again in this country before he wants to express himself in public at all. But we certainly should not attempt to restrict him.
The hon. Gentleman used, as, I am afraid, he so often does, adjectives like "disgraceful", and so on, which do not really add anything to the serious problem we have to consider. I know the problems that are involved, but I am quite convinced, after looking at all the aspects and weighing them all up, that if we had pursued another course—we could have pursued the course of retaliation and counter-retaliation—this would in no way have helped Mr. Brooke. It would have inflicted such damage on relations between us and the Soviet Union as to serve no good purpose either to Mr. Brooke or to this country, or to mankind

Mr. Moonman: Whilst I welcome the general details of the package deal, will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary say that in the case of people, such as one of my constituents, who are given an opportunity to return to Russia for marriage, such an arrangement as this will not happen again, as it would be serious if it were repeated?

Mr. Stewart: Frankly, I do not think that I can answer for that, but the position of those British subjects who desire to contract marriages with Soviet citizens—and we know that there are three precise cases—is that they will be able to go to the Soviet Union if they wish to register the marriage and, having done so, they and their partners will be free to reside in whichever country they wish. I think that that is the best one can expect.

Mr. Evelyn King: Whilst I deplore the whole sordid deal, does not the Foreign Secretary agree that another embarrassing question arises? If the Krogers are to be released, what is the Government's


attitude towards the other Portland prisoners and, in particular, Ethel Gee, an ageing spinster of 55, now serving a 15-year sentence for a lesser part in that plot? Is it conceivable that the Government intend to release the master in treachery and maintain in prison one who was, in fact, his catspaw?

Mr. Stewart: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but this is a question that he must put to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Although my right hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a good deal of support from all on this side for the very delicate decision he had to take, can he confirm that another Government—I believe, the German Government—recently entered into a similar arrangement with the Soviet Union? In view of this, would he consider consulting other Allied Governments on what implications arise for British subjects and subjects of other Western countries visiting the Soviet Union in future?

Mr. Stewart: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends well appreciate the difficult position which the Government found, and the difficulties of the negotiations; and that we join with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in his expressions of pleasure that Mr. Brooke has been released? But is the Foreign Secretary aware that a deal of this kind, whereby two prisoners are exchanged for one could set a dangerous precedent? Will he give an assurance to the House that in no circumstances will this present exchange be regarded by the Government as a precedent?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that we can regard a matter like this as a precedent in any sense. This was a very particular case. I had to decide what it was right to do in this particular case, taking all the factors into account.

Mr. Moyle: While my right hon. Friend will be aware that I welcome the humanity

of what the Government have done in bringing home Mr. Brooke in these conditions, will he also agree that a promise by Soviet Intelligence to potential employees that if the worst comes to the worst they can be got out of prison in nine years is unlikely to ease their recruitment problem?

Mr. Stewart: I must say that I very much take the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is a point of very serious substance.

Sir J. Rodgers: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us on this side of the House deplore the sordid package deal in the release of two arch spies like the Krogers in exchange for Mr. Brooke, who committed a minor crime as compared with that committed by the Krogers? Is he not ashamed to come to the House and say that the Soviet authorities have said that they would favourably consider regular consular visits rather than giving a firm promise? How does he have the nerve to come to the House and to use such phrases?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think the hon. Member has faced this problem in his own mind. At one moment he announces his pleasure that Mr. Brooke is coming back and in the next moment he calls it a sordid deal. He cannot have it both ways. He ought to make clear whether he thinks the whole matter is right or wrong. I accept that there are arguments on both sides, and he ought to be able to decide his position. He does not seem to have solved the matter in his own mind. I have to solve the matter, and I have tried to solve it in a way which I think is consistent both with humanity and with the long-term interests of this country.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Foreign Secretary accept that, while no one in his senses would envy him in the decision which he has had to make, all hon. Members who have applied their minds to the problem recognise that he has dealt with this matter with great honour and intelligence? Will he further accept that the implications in the questions of some hon. Members opposite are that we should discuss in full in the House the Secret Service. If we are to have partial discussion of those matters, then we will have to have a full debate, with wide-ranging implications indeed.

Mr. Stewart: I am obliged for what my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said. We can say, without arrogance, that our country maintains a very high standard of regard for human rights and dignity, that we are not prepared to inflict injuries on human beings as a measure of retaliation, and that this sometimes makes it difficult when we have to make bargains with foreign governments. In the light of those considerations I have to make this kind of decision. Weighing everything up, I am firmly convinced that this was the right decision to take.

Sir F. Maclean: The Foreign Secretary has spoken of his anxiety to do nothing that might prejudice Anglo-Soviet relations. Will he consider conveying to the Soviet Government that they also have a contribution to make in this respect?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, indeed, I will certainly do that; and I am sure that they will note what has been said in this House.

Mr. Paget: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the people who work for us in espionage are honourable people who serve their country, and that this is probably equally true of the Russians? Probably both are right, since the more we know about each other's specific intentions the better. Therefore, if we have an opportunity, without danger to our own country, to release people who have behaved in this way, it should be a matter for rejoicing, not a tragedy.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend in that question raises major philosophical issues to which I would not like to give an answer off the cuff. I would go thus far with him. I accept the proposition that somebody who carries out espionage on behalf of the country to which he has given his own loyalty is in one box, but somebody who has been born and brought up in one country and owes everything he has to that country and then engages in espionage against it is in quite another.

Lord Lambton: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether he has received an absolute assurance from the security authorities that the knowledge in the hands of the Krogers could now be of no use to any Power whatever?

Mr. Stewart: In the nature of the case, I do not think that one could possibly give an absolute 100 per cent. assurance, as the noble Lord asks. I considered this matter, and I felt that the value of retaining the Krogers in prison had now so diminished that it was right to do what we have done.

Mr. Archer: While fully accepting that those who care most about humanity are the most susceptible to blackmail in these cases, will the Foreign Secretary confirm that he will never make this a reason for lowering the standards of compassion which he has shown in this case?

Mr. Stewart: All I can say in reply to that is that I hope not. I will try to do my best.

Mr. Maude: How do Her Majesty's Government propose to ensure that whenever we in this country catch and sentence a Russian agent an innocent British subject is not arrested in order to set up a package deal for the Foreign Secretary? Furthermore, what is the deterrent value of long sentences against spies if this kind of blackmail can be applied to get them off with less than a third of the sentence?

Mr. Stewart: As for the last part of the question, I have already pointed out that they have served a substantial term of imprisonment. The first part of the question raises an important problem, but I would invite the House to notice that Mr. Brooke undoubtedly did commit, and knowingly committed, an offence against Soviet law. In view of what he has suffered I do not want to over-labour this point, but it is important for the House to notice that, so far as I can discover, there is no recent instance of any British subject who has gone to the Soviet Union and who has been careful to observe its laws who has got into any kind of trouble. I think that one can say with reasonable confidence that a British citizen who goes to the Soviet Union and is careful to observe its laws while he is there is not at risk for this reason.

Mr. Dickens: Nevertheless, in view of Mr. Brooke's experience in the Soviet union, and in view of the consequences of which we have heard today, is it not now incumbent of the Foreign Office to make quite certain that visitors from Great Britain to the Soviet Union are


informed of the very serious and severe penalties prescribed by Soviet law for quite trivial offences?

Mr. Stewart: The Foreign Office is always very ready, and has been ready on a great many occasions, to provide visitors to any country with information which might be important to them. I agree that this is particularly true of people who visit countries whose whole concepts of human liberty are different from ours. I should have thought that it is now clear to British citizens who intend to visit the Soviet Union and certain other countries that it is important to carry out strict observance of their laws and that the risks in not so doing are very grave.

Mr. Blaker: Would not the Foreign Secretary agree that surrender to blackmail has implications which go rather wider than this particular deal and affect the credibility of British foreign policy in general?

Mr. Stewart: Of course, we considered that matter. When the hon. Member uses phrases like "surrender to blackmail", he must try in his own mind to answer the question whether he feels we ought not to have made this arrangement. If he thinks we ought not to have done so he must understand what that means in the consequences to Mr. Brooke, in the forfeiture of the humane arrangement which we have been able to make and in the permanent injury which this might do to relations between this country and the Soviet Union. That is the question which has got to be answered.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. As a matter of humanity, might I mention a British subject who has been detained for a very long time in Russia because the Soviet Union will not issue a visa for her to come to this country? This has occurred in spite of representations made at ambassadorial level—indeed at a very distinguished level involving Lord Montgomery. Did the Foreign Secretary do anything in the consultations with the Soviet Union to obtain a visa for Miss Natasha Whitehead to come to this country, as she wishes to do and as our people, through our Ambassador,

wish her to do? What has been done about Miss Whitehead since we have heard nothing about her for a very long time?

Mr. Stewart: I do not think that I can answer this question without notice, but I will be glad to consult the hon. Lady about it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order must not be a device to get in an extra question.

Mr. Griffiths: I have no such intention, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to draw to your attention that yesterday I had a Question to the Foreign Secretary asking whether he would make a statement about Mr. Brooke before the House rose. I had no Answer to that Question yesterday and I had no indication today that such an Answer was to be given. As you, Mr. Speaker, said earlier, surely this is against the conventions of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman had a Question yesterday, it would have been good of the Minister to let him know that such a statement was being made today.

SOCIAL INSURANCE BENEFITS (WHITE PAPER)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Richard Crossman): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I have today laid before Parliament a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for social insurance benefits in the new scheme of earnings-related social security. The Government have already, in 1966, introduced a substantial measure of earnings relationship into the provision for short-term benefits for the early months of sickness, unemployment and widowhood. The changes now proposed for short-term benefits are thus limited to those required to adapt them to the new system of earnings-related contributions and long-term benefits. Stamped cards and flat-rate contributions will be abolished for all employees covered by P.A.Y.E. and the new contributions for them will be collected through the P.A.Y.E. system.


The proposals, with the financial implications, are set out in detail in the White Paper.
The White Paper also describes the new deal for the long-term sick. Short-term sickness benefit under the new scheme will be payable for up to six months. Those who are still sick at the end of this period will be able to receive a new earnings related long-term sickness benefit—to be called invalidity pension. This benefit will replace the present flat-rate sickness benefit for those who are sick for more than six months. For those who are so severely handicapped that they need a great deal of help from other people there will also be available a new attendance allowance announced in the earlier White Paper.
As regards the industrial injuries scheme, the Government are still in consultation with both sides of industry on the consequential changes necessary in industrial injury benefit and industrial widows' pensions; no change is proposed in industrial disablement benefit. Subject to this, the proposals in today's White Paper, with those already ananounced in the earlier White Paper "National Superannuation and Social Insurance", complete the Government's plans for reconstructing the present national insurance scheme. The Government intend to introduce the necessary legislation in the next Session of Parliament.

Lord Balniel: We are glad that the White Paper on short-term benefits is now being published. But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement would appear to indicate that it contains no proposals other than those which have already been outlined in the original White Paper? In particular, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be disappointment that, apart from the attendance allowance, which will benefit only a limited number of severely disabled persons, there is no advance in the provision for the civilian disabled?
I have already welcomed the attendance allowance, but I should like to ask two specific questions. First, is there any reason why the attendance allowance should have to wait until 1972? Could it not be introduced straightaway?
Secondly, will severely disabled children, who have no contribution

record, also be eligible for this attendance allowance?

Mr. Crossman: On the first point about there being nothing new here, the two paragraphs that we had in the original White Paper, as I promised, were expanded. I should think that the announcement of the invalidity allowance was, in a sense, new. We have now added to the short-term six months combination of flat rate arid graded benefit, the first long-term graded benefit for sickness, or, as we say, invalidity benefit. This is new. Though it does not altogether deal with the problem of disability—and I frankly admit this—it is a notable advance in an area where, for a long time before this Government came into office, there was no advance.
Concerning the attendance allowance, I will certainly consider the noble Lord's suggestion that this should be paid straightaway. I was thinking of including it all in the Bill and introducing the whole thing together in 1972. However, I will certainly consider the possibility of earlier introduction.
I should like notice of the special question about children. It is a difficult question and I do not want to answer it today.

Mr. Molloy: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement today and, in particular, on his second thoughts, in response to the noble Lord's question, concerning the attendance allowance. This is a serious point. If my right hon. Friend would give the House an assurance that he will not wait until 1972, but give a reasonable promise that there will be some implementation along those lines within the next Session of Parliament, he would be making an even greater contribution than he has now, and many people would be grateful for it.

Mr. Crossman: I cannot go further than I went in my previous answer. I am prepared to consider it. The attendance allowance is a new principle and needs a great deal of careful consideration. I am not going to rush it, because we are introducing a brand new principle into National Insurance. We are giving a small amount of it here. I think we would be wise to wait and do it all together in the big new Bill.

Mr. Farr: While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's statement about the attendance allowance, I should like to echo what my noble Friend has said about it being brought into effect before 1972.
Will this attendance allowance be sufficient for a person who is severely handicapped and requires a full-time attendant at home to run to that sort of service?

Mr. Crossman: I do not want to add to what I have already said. There will be a full statement about the detailed application of the scheme. Naturally, we have some experience of this with war pensions and industrial injuries pensions, because we have instances of constant attendance allowance in those cases. Exactly how we will apply the principle in this case will be announced in detail later.

Mrs. Lena Jeger: Has my right hon. Friend been able to give any attention to the position of Members of Parliament concerning earnings-related contributions and benefits? In particular, has he given any thought to ending the fiction that Members of Parliament are self-employed and, therefore, disqualified from unemployment benefit when they lose their seats, which may be a relevant consideration to many hon. Members opposite at the next Election?

Mr. Crossman: I admit that up till now it has been assumed—perhaps wrongly—that Members of Parliament are self-employed rather than employees. I gather that the matter is now under serious reconsideration.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everybody will be delighted to see the end of stamps and cards? Would he care to give the House an estimate of the administrative cost saving which will result from their elimination and what the contribution conditions will be for the award of the invalidity pension?
The right hon. Gentleman says that it is earnings-related. Therefore, to qualify for the award, a person must presumably have been in employment at some time. Will this not increase still further the dis-

partity between those who fulfil contribution conditions and those who have been disabled all their lives and therefore unable to do so?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on the second question. The whole innovation here is that in return for a contribution paid by an employee his wife, for example, can receive the pension although she has not been an employee. Because of this innovation we are being particularly careful in preparing for the scheme.
On the first question, there is no way of estimating the saving on stamps. We have to combine it with the much increased expenditure on the computerisation of the whole earnings-related contribution. I hope that the net result will be that we do not have to have an increase of staff in Newcastle.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view both of the complexity and importance of these matters, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be an opportunity to debate the White Paper, not only before legislation is introduced, but before legislation is finalised in form? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are good precedents for this?

Mr. Crossman: I should like to consider that. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter for me, but for the Leader of the House. I am prepared to talk to the Leader of the House about this because I, too, should very much welcome a debate on these very important issues.

Mr. Fortescue: Does the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is now able to announce the amplification of some of the proposals contained in the January White Paper mean that the nation wide survey of the chronic sick and disabled referred to in that White Paper has been completed and will be acted upon?

Mr. Crossman: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we were able to extract some information from that, of a partial character, but we have not been able to complete the deductions from it. It will be some months before we can publish them.

MR. SPEAKER (LEAVE OF ABSENCE)

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that the Bath University of Technology proposes to do me the honour of conferring on me tomorrow the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore ask for the indulgence of the House and leave of absence to enable me to attend the University for that purpose.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating you on this honour.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC OPINION REGISTER

Bill to establish a published register on which opinions in relation to Government Green Papers and certain other Government policy documents may be publicly expressed and recorded prior to further Government action, presented pursuant to Order [23rd July], and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 206.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL

Lords A tnendments considered.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of backbenchers find themselves in a particularly difficult situation because of the management of Government business. We accept that in matters of emergency the Government have to move, and can move, with great speed, and that it is within their power so to do. I do not think anybody would claim that this Bill is an emergency. We therefore find ourselves in the position that most hon. Members, unless they bad been present in another place at 11 p.m. on Tuesday, would not have known whether the other place had put back into the Bill the whole of Clause 17 in Part III of the Bill. Reference to the minutes of the other place does not show this.
We have been asked to deal with the remaining stages of the Bill, but we found ourselves in the position of not knowing what Amendments we could or could not amend. The published list of Amendments was not made available at the Vote Office until about 6 o'clock yesterday. This puts the Opposition in a difficulty in trying to deal sensibly with the action that has been taken in another place.
I wonder whether you consider that the Government, in attempting to rush this legislation through, ought to pay greater attention to the rights of backbenchers, because if they do not, the whole proceedings become a nonsense.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for putting his point of view so clearly. The House, if it likes, could


proceed with what Francis Thompson called "deliberate speed". In this case it seems to have proceeded with what Francis Thompson called "majestic instancy". I cannot interfere with the arrangements of the Government. I had to study this morning, after a not inconsiderable amount of time in the Chair during the last 24 hours, starred Amendments made to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. I admit that it has been rather difficult, but it has not been impossible. I note that the hon. Member, or one of his colleagues, has starred Amendments to one of the Bills before us. It is difficult, but it is not a matter of order for the Chair. The hon. Member must make his protest to the Government, to the Leader of the House. It is not a matter for Mr. Speaker.

Clause 2

GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND POWERS.

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 2, line 36, after "Acts" insert:
but subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) of this section".

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): Reluctant as I am to agree with an unrepresentative second Chamber on anything, I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. John Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had always understood that there was at least a convention that the decencies were observed and that one House did not go out of its way to slander and denigrate the other. The Minister, without any trace of apology for the headlong haste to which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery) has called attention, rose to his feet with this gratuitous slur upon another place which at least has the distinction of not commanding united support on that nasty Front Bench opposite.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is a tradition and practice of the House not to refer to proceedings in another place during the current Session, unless it is to a Ministerial statement.

Mr. Rodgers: On a point of order. I do not think that it was a slur on the

other place. I said that I found it instinctively difficult to agree with it, which is true; I referred to it as an unrepresentative second Chamber, which is also true; otherwise I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Peter Blaker: I wonder whether the Minister will be repeating his remarks about another place on every one of the eight Amendments from another place, because I expect—I may be taking a risk in so expecting—that he will ask the House to accept them all. Perhaps it would put his remarks into perspective if I pointed out that some are Amendments put down by his noble Friends. It is a pity that the Minister did not explain to the House the purpose of the Amendment. Does he propose to give an explanation of Amendment No. 3 when we reach it, because it would be useful for those hon. Members who have not been following the proceedings closely to be given such an explanation?

Mr. Rodgers: I will give to the House whatever explanation is required. This is a drafting Amendment, and I hoped that I was saving time by waiting to give the explanation on the substantive Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 44, at end insert:
( ) to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions;".

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment states a specific power for the Tourist Boards to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions. The Tourist Boards will have to maintain close links with many interests concerned with providing tourist facilities and amenities as well as with trade, travel and consumer interests. We discussed the matter at length in Committee. They will obviously have to establish appropriate consultative and advisory machinery, and their powers under the Bill as originally drafted were adequate for the purpose. While there is no need to provide a specific power for


them to establish committees, I do not suggest that we should disturb this provision which has been inserted in the Bill in another place.

Mr. Blaker: I am glad that the Minister proposed that we should agree with this Amendment, which was put down by Opposition Members in another place and accepted by the Government spokesman in another place. The point has been in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself during the various stages of the Bill. The relations which will be established between the new Boards and the industry are of central importance, as we said from time to time. The matter is of particular importance because the British Travel Association is about to disappear. It is useful not only to have the powers in the Bill but to stress the importance of the committee system. For that reason, I welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: May I intervene on a point of order? As Mr. Speaker made no announcement in the negative, I assume that the three Amendments in my name to the Lords' Amendments will be called in due time. It would be possible to introduce part of the subject of one of them on this Amendment. I do not want to do that if I can leave it to the appropriate time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that Mr. Speaker had given an indication. If he has not, I will now state that in fact the three Amendments have not been selected for discussion.

Mr. Emery: That puts hon. Members in an extremely difficult situation. We have had little notice and have had to do our homework, as Mr. Speaker indicated, late into the night to get the Amendments down. That is due to the indecent haste, and quite unnecesssary haste of the Government. Now we are in the very difficult position that we are not even given the possibility of voting on them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This point was dealt with by Mr. Speaker, who suggested that the hon. Member could make his representations to the appropriate quarter. It is not a point of order for the Chair. Perhaps he will resume his speech on the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Emery: If I have to deal with it in that way—

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Would not the solution be for my hon. Friend to address the House at considerable length while the Leader of the House is sent for in order that representations may be made to him, because it is not within the power of a junior Minister to alter the order of Government business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is in order to discuss only the Amendment before the House—nothing else.

Mr. Emery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop)—my hon. and in many instances learned Friend—for his suggestion. Even the Leader of the House cannot alter the selection of Amendments. I am aggrieved that we are not to be able to debate some of the new factors which have arisen and which were dependent on the action which another place took.
Their Lordships' Amendment permits the establishment of committees to advise the Tourist Boards. This is of major importance. On Report and Third Reading, we pressed the Government to do it. We had to accept that we were in difficulties in Committee because of the Government's reasonableness in accepting Amendments put down by the Opposition on the establishment of an English Tourist Board—a proposal supported by some hon. Members opposite because of the logic of our case. It was agreed by both sides of the Committee that the type of advisory procedure which would be used in the Bill would not be debated in Committee. The difficulty then arose that many of the Amendments dealing with the advisory procedure were not selected on Report, so that even at this late stage it can be said that debate has not taken place on the establishment of the type of committee which ought to advise the Boards in the operation of their duty. This Amendment, therefore, takes on considerable importance, and the Minister of State has not given adequate information on the way in which he expects the Amendment to work.
I must refer to consultation with regional tourist committees, a point which I should not have mentioned had my Amendments been selected. In my area


of the South-West, there was a strong feeling that there ought to be a South-West Tourist Board with statutory authority. I could not support that proposal because I felt that if it were accepted, equally valid arguments could be advanced for statutory tourist boards in every region, and I am against statutory boards being proliferated like waste paper throughout the land. However, once we have an English Tourist Board, it is of the greatest importance to ensure that they consult tourist authorities or committees in regions to obtain regional advice. A number of us tried to have that put into the Bill. May I have an assurance from the Minister that the system envisaged in the Lords' Amendment will provide for a committee with responsibility to consult and co-ordinate the views of the regional tourist authorities or committees and of all the other regional tourist activities? The Minister himself referred to that—many columns of HANSARD are devoted to his speeches—as essential for the proper working of the Act. While we will not have been able to spell out in the Bill the need for consultation, and although assurances from the Despatch Box have not the power of the written word in a Bill, it would nevertheless be of help to have an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that he will do his best to ensure that, in the establishment of these committees, there is the type of regional grouping of which I have spoken.
5.0 p.m.
Committees have played a major part in the working of the B.T.A. I seek an assurance from the hon. Gentleman that the type of committee structure used by the Association is that which is envisaged in the Amendment. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the work done, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) on the Historic Buildings Committee of the Association, and of the work of a number of other people, well known in this House and elsewhere, on the publication Committee, the Historic Buildings Committee and other committees. They have been of immense assistance.
What we have never had from the Minister is an absolute assurance that he wishes this sort of committee structure to be carried on in the new set-up, because,

through it, we can draw upon the learned advice and considerable experience of so many people from different walks of life. It is essential to have such an assurance at this time because the new structure will entail small executive managements which will not have the wide experience in executive responsibility enjoyed by the whole Council of the B.T.A. It is specifically because of this factor that it is essential to ensure that this extra advice is available to the Authority and the boards through the type of committee structure I have been advocating. If that is what the Amendment is intended to do, the House will be more than pleased.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I had not intended to speak but my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) made a kind reference to my membership of the Historic Buildings Committee of the British Travel Association. I believe that Committee be of such importance—my membership of it is purely incidental—that it must be fitted into the new structure, and I would like an assurance from the Minister of State on that point.
The Committee evolved because it was felt that the tremendous tourist potential of the historic buildings in various hands—whether private, public or the National Trust and so forth—was not being properly exploited. I use the word "exploited" advisedly because such houses are a great advantage in attracting visitors from abroad and providing enjoyment in this country. A number of people were called together and others were added later. They eventually became a formal committee of the Association. Under a distinguished independent chairman, all the interests were represented—the owners, the National Trust, the Ministry of Public Building and Works and others who could be helpful with advice and in the co-ordination of the work.
Without the existence of the Committee, we should never have been able to attack—I mean tackle—various Ministries. I used the word "attack" inadvertently and so I may have given the impression that we have had trouble. We have had trouble occasionally with various Ministries, particularly the Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Transport with regard to signs and so forth. But all these things have been thrashed


out in the Committee with the Ministries concerned and reasonably satisfactory results obtained. It could not have been done without the assistance of the Committee. The B.T.A. could not have done it on its own because it would not have had the know-how to set about it.
I hope that the Lords Amendment means that the work of this Committee and others like it will be continued and that the fund of advice and knowledge built up will not be lost. We have had vague assurances but I hope that, following what my hon. Friend has said so powerfully and what I say more diffidently, we shall get an assurance from the Minister of State even at this late stage, because this is a vital matter.

Mr. Raymond Gower: My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has given valid reasons why the Minister should give us an indication of the guide-lines on how this part of the Bill will be applied. Our fear about the Bill as it stands is that the small boards which are preferred by the Government will tend, by reason of their very smallness, to be bureaucratic and rather separate from the industry. By implementation of this addendum, by the use of committees, this danger could be overcome.
The existing set-up does not suffer in that way. It broadly expresses the views of this very big and diverse industry. If these committees are employed as we hope they will be, I should imagine that any dangers arising from the smallness of the boards and the fact that they will not be representative of the industry will be overcome. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance along these lines.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I, too, want to know from the Minister of State what he has in mind as the functions of the committees proposed in the Amendment. Secondly, I am anxious to avoid unnecessary duplication. Everyone will be desirous of that. For instance, it would be a mistake to have a regional committee set up where there is already a regional body such as the South-West Travel Association, because this would mean an unnecessary expense and a duplication of functions. We would arrive at a slightly anomalous situation where there were regional committees for some areas and

not for others, this corresponding to the fact that some areas have regional travel associations of one kind or another and others do not. Therefore, I seek an assurance that, insofar as it is within his power to give advice, the hon. Gentleman will press the merits of using existing voluntary organisations where they exist. This would avoid the expense of a new secretariat for regional committees. It would avoid the possibility of conflicting advice from regional committees formed in one way and from regional travel associations formed in another way, a conflict which could only confound confusion.
Although I have the greatest desire to see specialist functional committees set up, I am not in favour of area committees. If an area wishes to be represented, if should do so via a voluntary travel association, tourist board, or whatever it may be called. If it has so little interest in its own tourist trade that it canont be bothered to put together such a local tourist body, I do not see why the English, Scottish or Wales Tourist Board should be bothered to do the job for it. In other words, the motive should be to help those who help themselves, not to provide an alternative for people who do not help themselves. That must be the rule right the way through. It is a rule for economy of administration as well as of finance, and it should be observed.
In local government there has been a tendency towards greater proliferation of committees which then become so diverse that co-ordinating committees have to be set up. There is a danger that that sort of thing can happen with other bodies with a large territorial focus, as, for instance, the British Tourist Board—or British Tourist Authority as it now is. The name has been changed again and again, and I cannot imagine how anyone will remember the correct names of all these bodies. It would Lave been better if the Government had left well alone as the Bill came out of Committee, where it was so exhaustively discussed, instead of introducing the confusion which we now have.
At a later stage—it would be out of order now—I shall direct attention to a conflict between a provision which the Government propose to insert and one which they intend to leave in. But sufficient unto the day be the conflict thereof.


At this point, I want an assurance from the Minister that the giving of power to set up specialist committees, however well-intentioned, will not result eventually in the setting up of a large number of nonspecialist committees overlapping both with one another and with regional and local tourist bodies and travel associations which already exist or which will be set up in the future.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In my view, this Amendment from the other place is unnecessary because the Clause as it stands gives full powers to set up committees in any case. Obviously, the setting up of a new authority does not mean that we shall have an authority without committees. I believe that one of the reasons put forward by the present British Travel Association for changing its own structure was that it wished to improve its committee organisation it felt that it was somewhat hidebound in its committee structure and scope. I understand that it has about seven main committees and several others.
What concerns me is that by the Bill as amended in the other place we shall be inviting the Authority to set up committees. Authorities are very good at setting up committees without our invitation, and by inviting this Authority to do so we are likely to call forth a proliferation of committees and a growth in the structure around them, since more people will be required to service them and more expense will be entailed.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Gower: Does not my hon. Friend appreciate that we have throughout taken the view that the new boards will be rather small and remote bodies unless they are serviced by committees of this kind? I hope that he does not take a contrary view.

Mr. Lewis: I am taking my own view. My hon. Friend must know that right from the beginning I have been against a great deal of the Bill, I voted against it on Second Reading. Now that we are at the end of the road, I do not intend to take another line. I am prepared to let it go, but nevertheless—

Mr. Robert Cooke: My hon. Friend challenges the idea of committees on the ground of cost. Does he realise that

under the present committee system of the British Travel Association—the committees we are talking about—all is adequately paid for by the subscriptions of the members whose interests are involved? The cost of those committees is well covered by subscriptions from members of the individual groups.

Mr. Lewis: I have some doubt about that. The amount of money given to the British Travel Association by the Government is much greater than that provided from the regions. One of my complaints about the Bill is that, now that we have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech more akin to a Second Reading speech than one directed to the Amendment before the House.

Mr. Lewis: We are near the holiday period. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I allowed myself to be led astray by my hon. Friends. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). The present committee structure needs a good deal of improvement. But, apart from the possibility of increased cost, I wonder whether my hon. Friends in the regions have considered that the invitation extended by the new subsection to set up committees may lead to a situation in which the new central powerful authorities set up committees and inflict those committees on them in their regions, where they greatly value the independence of their own committees. Those committees are desirable links with the major authorities, but they may find that there is inflicted upon them a central authority committee which is unrepresentative of their area and which does not provide the sort of publicity services and the like which they want to maximise the number of tourists coming to their area.
The invitation to set up committees is such that one might almost suggest to the new Authority that there was every justification for having a committee to push the attractions of Rutland as a tourist area. We already have many tourists coming to visit us, but we might well feel that there was need to promote our tourist interest further, and for that purpose there might be a committee. Admittedly, that is not a serious comment, but it highlights the point which


I am making. My fear is that we shall have too many of these committees as a result of the invitation which it is proposed to extend.
I hope that, when the new Authority is set up, it will conform pretty nearly to the kind of committee structure which I envisage, though with certain changes which will probably be an advantage, and that there will he no temptation to overdo the number of committees. The board can work much better if it does not blow itself up with an over-organised structure. I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that.

Sir John Eden: The Minister of State in another place appeared to believe that this proposed Amendment was unnecessary and that it added nothing to the Bill. Yet the Government, through the Minister of State in this House, has thought fit to advise this House to agree with the Amendment. From that I must conclude that the Government have had second thoughts and decided that there is some valid reason for incorporating the Amendment in the Bill. They must therefore have some valid idea of the function of these committees. I should like to have more elucidation on that from the point of view of hoteliers in my constituency, many if not all of whom are throughly disgruntled about many of the requirements of the Bill and want to have as much clarification as possible of its provisions.
Is it in the mind of the hon. Gentleman that these committees should be set up to advise the board in carrying out any functions that may be given it under the new Clause which now forms part of the Bill in connection with registration of tourist accommodation? Should the Board seek advice on such matters as annual fees for registration or the display of signs? The whole idea of compulsory registration is absolutely abhorrent to hoteliers. It is nonsensical that they are to be required to pay a fee and to be subjected to penalties of up to £200 if they fail to accord with these provisions. Would advice be sought on this from outside bodies such as motoring organisations, food guides, and regional authorities which are already in existence? If that is the type of advice the board would seek, the establishment of these committees would be wholly acceptable because it could avoid further

trampling on the rights of hoteliers and not be subject to the threat of having to pay fees.

Mr. William Rodgers: I shall not respond to those rather provoking strictures made by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden). It is not a case of having had second thoughts but of showing generosity. As I tried to suggest earlier, my instinct is not to show generosity to Amendments made in another place, but, that having been said, let us all get together and make as reasonable a structure as we can.
I agree with the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that this Amendment is rather unnecessary. I would have said so had it been moved in Standing Committee. It does not give us further powers, but, if it makes men happy, on this occasion I am prepared to accept it and recommend it to the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) is an admirable member of an admirable committee. Perhaps that is the committee which sits under the chairmanship of Mr. Hugh Wontner, and I have no doubt that it does excellent work. Although we may have different views about the new structure, I think it right to set up the Boards and let them get on with the job. I hope that they will not duplicate work properly done on a voluntary basis. I said that in Committee and on Report. These are new statutory bodies which will rely to a substantial extent on voluntary contributions in the industry and on a regional basis.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the committee to which he referred is a national committee covering England, Wales and Scotland. If we were to haw an advisory committee for each country we would get into a mess. We should be able to look at the matter nationally. Will the same work be possible under the new structure?

Mr. Rodgers: I take the point and I hope that now we have decided on three boards that will not preclude co-operation by which the purpose will be best served.
As the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said, we have established compact, functional boards. They will succeed and tourism will prosper in


direct proportion to the way in which all those who are authoritative and play their part in this matter are consulted. In reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West, I see no reason why the boards should not find it desirable to consult on matters which he had in mind.
I cannot see why there should be a separate committee to consult with regional bodies. I cannot give the absolute assurance asked by the hon. Member for Honiton. I do not think he would expect the old B.T.A. structure to be envisaged. We are anxious to get the best structure. I hope that the board will note what has been said today and what was said in Committee, on which there is a large measure of agreement.

Mr. Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the regional question? I spent a considerable time dealing with the need for regional consultation. So did my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). A number of people carrying out day-to-day activities in tourism are concerned about this. The Minister should try to give an indication that the new board will do whatever is possible to co-ordinate work with those people on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Rodgers: I am absolutely sure that it will do so. I thought I had suggested that in relation to what was said by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).

Question put and agreed to.

Lord's Amendment No. 3: In page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to "none" in line 8 and insert:
(2A) Only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it but this subsection shall not prevent the other Tourist Boards engaging in such activities on behalf of the Authority. (2B)".

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was proposed by the Government in another place following some detailed discussion. I think it has presentational advantages although I cannot say that it adds substantially to the Bill. There has never been in our minds

any question that the three country boards would be unable to prepare publicity material, not only for use in this country motion missions organised by the British Tourist Authority. We have envisages them being able to join in overseas promotion missions organised by the British Tourist Authority. The three country boards could play a part in overseas promotion activities as agents of the new B.T.A.
I make that point because there is a question of delicate balance here. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that it was the rôle of the British Tourist Authority to promote Britain as a whole and there would be a danger if separate boards adopted a fragmented approach. By accepting this Amendment we would show clearly the rôle of the British Tourist Authority while not excluding a rôle for the boards of the kind I have described.

Mr. Gower: I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. He has pointed out that the Amendment makes the general statement that only the British Tourist Authority shall have power to carry on activities outside the United Kingdom. As a general statement, I do not object to that. On the other hand, it is deemed desirable in certain conditions that the tourist boards should have the power to do some of this work on behalf of the Authority. Does the Amendment mean that they will be able to do such work only by direction of or with the permission of the Authority?
5.30 p.m.
This could lead to difficulties. The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) or the Welsh industrial development body might contemplate a major trade exhibition in the United States or elsewhere overseas. Surely it would be advantageous if the appropriate Tourist Board were able to co-operate with the trade or industrial undertaking. If a trade or industrial exhibition were held in New York or elsewhere in the United States, it might be of the greatest benefit to tourism if the appropriate board had a hand in it. In such a case, would it be necestary for the board to obtain the permission or approval of the Authority? If so, would it readily be given?
It would be most unfortunate if the boards were not able to co-operate at an opportune moment in an industrial or


trade exhibition overseas. I want an assurance either that it will not be necessary for them to get the permission of the Authority or that the Authority will readily give permission.

Mr. William Edwards: I must make one reservation about handing over power to the Welsh Tourist Board. We do not know who will be on the board. Before giving greater powers to the board and expecting it to carry out advertising abroad, we wish to be sure that there are on it people who are capable of presenting the tourist industry as members of the industry in Wales want it to be presented.
In the past, the Welsh Tourist Board has, with the exception of one or two names, been totally unrepresentative of the tourist industry. There have been far too many nominees from local government and by the Government on the basis of political and other allegiances and not on the basis of expertise in the industry which they are supposed to administer. If the make-up of the board which we are to have in Wales is the same as the make-up of the board which we have had in the past, I assure the Welsh Office that the people in the tourist industry will not want their industry to be promoted abroad by it.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I should like to say a few words about the clumsy way in which the Bill has been drafted and in which it is being amended. There is a conflict between the part of Clause 2 which appears on page 2 of the Bill and the part which appear at the top of page 3. It is always undesirable to have conflicts in Clauses.
Clause 2(2) provides that one of the functions of each Tourist Board shall be
to promote or undertake publicity in any form".
That is an all-embracing function. On the next page, the Bill provides that
only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of
subsection (2)
to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it …
There is an obvious conflict between the two parts of the same Clause.
As originally drafted, there were paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) in subsection

(2). It is now proposed to insert subsection (2A), which modifies subsection (2) (a). We can imagine the fun which somebody will have in referring to this provision in court. It is an absolute drafting nonsense.
The Government should have put the proposed restriction after subsection (2) (a) in line 42. It is wrong to lay a statutory duty on the three Boards
to promote or undertake publicity in any form",
which is a clear, all-embracing statutory duty, and to provide that
each Tourist Board shall have power to do anything for the purpose of discharging the functions conferred on it by this section
and then to say, in this strange restriction, that the Clause does not mean what it says because
only the British Tourist Authority shall have power
to do this outside the United Kingdom, although it goes on to say in what will be subsection (2B) that it can do it if it acts as agent for the Authority.
There is a good living for lawyers here; there is no doubt about that. But this is not the way in which we should legislate. We should legislate clearly and explicitly. But to get involved in this sort of dog's breakfast whereby we put forward an all-embracing proposition and then on the next page proceed to knock it down is not the way to pass legislation which is likely to be with us for some time, because in the queue for legislation tourism will not come up again for several, if not many, years.
This is my protest against shoddy and confusing drafting. I do not say that if someone is learned enough and is paid enough to spend long enough studying the Bill enough he cannot eventually work out what it means. But the Bill could have been drafted in a much clearer and more specific way. I do not believe that any hon. Member, reading Clause 2 as it will be if we accept the Amendment, can believe that it is other than a piece of drafting which we should be ashamed to pass into statute law.

Mr. Blaker: This Government Amendment illustrates the force of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) in an earlier debate about the difficulties which are caused to hon. Members by the speed with which


we have been compelled to take the Lords Amendments. This is due solely to the mismanagement by the Government of their programme. I hope that the industry will take note that once again, while the Opposition Members commend but criticise the provisions of the Bill, we are, nevertheless, facilitating its progress in the interest of the industry.
The Minister says that the Amendment does not change or add to the position under the Bill. That is not my impression. Owing, however, to the timetable, I have not had time to check back on all our debates which are relevant to the subject. Hon. Members who have been following the Bill in the course of its debates will know that this has been one of the most important provisions which we have debated at all stages and that it was debated also in considerable depth in another place. It is a surprise to me to hear the Ministry say that the Amendment does not change the position under the Bill or add to it.

Mr. Emery: My hon. Friend will also, no doubt, agree that although we have attempted to obtain the right interpretation of this sort of Amendment, none of us has had time to go to the experts for their interpretation or to be able to consider or challenge what the Minister has said? There was no reason for this rush. It was purely the result of mismanagement by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Blaker: I heartily endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about the drafting of the Bill simply confirm that it would have been valuable, in the interests or the industry and of good legislation, had we had reasonable time to consider these Amendments.
Hon. Members know that in Committee we put down and carried an Amendment, which was relevant to the point we are now considering, regarding the promotion overseas of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom. In another place, noble Lords on the Opposition side put down an Amendment which went less far than the Amendment which we in this House carried but which, nevertheless, went

further than the Amendment with which we are now faced. However, I take the view that this is a step forward. It recognises that there will be occasions when the attractions of the constituent parts of Britain should be presented in their own right. Therefore, so far as it goes, I welcome the Amendment.
My final question to the Minister is to ask who will pay when the tourist boards engage in these overseas promotion activities on behalf of the Authority. Will the cost have to come out of their budgets or will it be the responsibility of the B.T.A.?

Mr. William Rodgers: I am sorry that everybody is upset about the speed with which the Bill is making progress. It is an important Bill. I understand that the industry wants it. We wanted to get it on the Statute Book by the time the House rose for the Summer Recess. Judging by the number of inquiries which we have had under Part II of the Bill, anybody would believe that in seeking to get it on the Statute Book we were acting in the interest of the industry.
We have had 70 hours of discussion of the Bill. Its passage through the other place might have taken longer than some people expected. In view of my sentiments about the other place, it is for me to complain about that. It is not for hon. Members opposite to regret that the Lords have done what they believed to be their duty.

Mr. Blaker: The hon. Gentleman is being less than fair, but this is uncharacteristic of him. He should not go into the question of who is filibustering at any stage of the Bill, because the only filibustering has come from his own side. Perhaps the Minister will concede that it is for the Opposition to criticise a Bill and make sure that it is a good one. When it becomes law, the industry may feel that it might have been better drafted. Nevertheless, we are doing our utmost to see that it becomes law as soon as possible.

Mr. Rodgers: I have complaints about no one. I thought that others had complaints about me. If they have, it is reasonable that I should seek to reply. I am not complaining at our discussion today or in Committee. The Bill is making progress, it is getting better all the time and it will be valuable for the inustry.
I think that there is a large measure of agreement on the Amendment. The position as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) saw it was broadly correct. The Boards will act as agents for the British Tourist Authority. I certainly hope that there will not be sharp relations between the boards and the Authority in pulling different ways, nor do I believe that there will be difficulties with finance.
5.45 p.m.
To the extent that the boards act for the Authority, one would expect it to be on the basis of finance provided by the Authority. On the other hand, if there is action by the boards which the Authority is prepared to see but is not necessarily very enthusiastic about, it may be that the budgetary provision will be made elsewhere. This can be sorted out to the general satisfaction. Certainly, there will be no impediment of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for Barry about co-operation with industrial and trade exhibitions overseas. This is important and worthwhile and I would hope to see it extended.
The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) made a point with which, he may he surprised to know, I agree. Legislation as a whole is incomprehensible to the layman and I am sorry. I do not, however, think that the Bill is more incomprehensible than other Measures. On the contrary, it is rather easier to understand. The first of the Lords Amendments, which I accepted and referred to as a drafting Amendment, was designed to meet the point raised by the hon. Member, although I cannot claim that it necessarily met his full satisfaction.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 25, after "consultation" insert:
with the other Tourist Boards and".

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The House will recall that the present subsection (4) of Clause 2 was inserted on Report in this House on 23rd June because we felt it important to draw the attention of all four tourist boards to the importance of consultation with the many interests and organisations concerned

with tourism, an aspect on which we have commented earlier this afternoon.
To work successfully, all four boards will rely to a large extent on establishing close links with the tourist industry and other bodies concerned in every way with tourism, including the regional bodies. We expect the boards to consult one another. This is a matter of common sense, because they will have a great deal of common interest and concern of national importance and they can do so to each other's benefit. The fact that the chairmen of the English, Scottish and Wales Boards will he ex officio members of the B.T.A. will provide an obvious avenue for consultation and exchanges of experience, but this will not be the only way in which consultations take place between the boards. I hope that consultation will be frequent and continuous at all levels, not only at chairman and board level, but at chief officer level, too. As I have said before, harmonious relations of this kind, pulling together rather than apart, will produce the result which we all want to see.
It was, however, felt in another place that as subsection (4) points to the desirabilty of consultation wit h other organisations and interests, it should also refer to consultation being desirable between the boards. This I regard as an obvious point. As it is obvious, I see no reason in present circumstances to do other than suggest that we agree with the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: The insertion of these few words makes it clear that it will be possible to obtain consultation in this matter, not only to deal with the functions dealt with in the Clause but, because part of the Clause covers also Part III and Clause 17 of the Bill, it will also be possible for consultation to take place between the boards and the British Tourist Authority on the matter of registration and compulsory grading.
It is to me an extreme pity that their Lordships, who, in Committee, took out the whole of Clause 17, were persuaded to restore it on recommittal. This was their decision. I am sorry that we have not been able to debate that matter now because many of us feel that the compulsory aspect is one of considerable concern and much against the wishes of


hoteliers and the restaurateurs. Therefore, it seems worth while making the point now that the discharging of the functions under this part of the Bill will allow consultations by the boards and the Authority with everybody on the matter of registration and grading. The Minister has himself said that, while he wishes these to be stand-by powers, they are not to be brought in unless on the advice of the new B.T.A. He will realise that the subjective judgment on the grading of hotels or the starring of hotels is open to considerable criticism if this is to be done by a nationalised Government agency.
Therefore, I hope it will be made quite clear that consultation can take place under Part III about the powers given in Clause 2 to ensure that the tourist boards will consult with the new B.T.A. on this matter. I feel very strongly that they will not only want to but will have to before any action can be taken on either registration or grading.

Mr. Blaker: This Amendment was made in response to a suggestion from the Opposition side in another place. This is a point to which we have attached importance all the way through our discussions on the Bill in this House. My hon. Friends and I put down Amendments which would have gone rather further than this one does. Nevertheless, so far as it goes, we welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

EXECUTION OF PARTICULAR TOURIST PROJECTS

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 5, line 9, after "except" insert:
(a) after consultation with the company in which the shares or stock are held, and (b)

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The ability to acquire shares to aid a particular tourist project under Clause 4 is seen as a means by which, in appropriate cases, the tourist boards could assist such a project by taking an equity interest rather than by making a grant

or loan. One would expect this ability to be very rarely used. We had in Committee some discussion of the circumstances in which it might be desirable or at least acceptable.
In the rare case of a tourist board taking an equity interest in a company the board would, obviously, keep in touch with the company about the progress and success of the project. Since a tourist board will be concerned to help get a tourist project off the ground and to see it successful, obviously no board will act precipitately thereafter to harm the enterprise which it has helped. Common sense suggests that, should a tourist board wish to dispose of any holding, it would be likely to discuss the possibility with the company concerned. If a board has a holding in a private company, then there is bound to be some restriction on disposal and transfer of shares written into the company's articles of association.
This Amendment will require a tourist board to consult the company concerned before disposing of any shareholding in it, and though I doubt whether, on the face of it, such a provision is necessary, I cannot see any objection to it.

Mr. Blaker: Once again, this Lords Amendment meets a point made by the Opposition side in both Houses. We would have liked here also to have gone further and to have struck out the ability of the Boards to take shares or stock in companies, but, if that is not to be the position, then we think it right that, at least, consultations should take place with the companies concerned. Therefore, we welcome this Lords Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

GRANTS FOR PROVISION OF NEW HOTELS

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 6, line 43, after "provided" insert "at reasonable times".

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The requirements in Clause 7(2) amount to a definition of the kind of hotel which is to be eligible for assistance


under Part II of the Bill. These requirements are to apply in the case of grants for new hotels under Clause 7 and for extension and improvements to existing hotels under Clauses 8 and 9.
The requirement in Clause 7(2)(b) is that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for guests staying at the hotel. Thus, the hotel must have facilities and equipment for this purpose on the premises, which may embrace more than one building. The requirement is intended to exclude from eligibility establishments which only provide bed and breakfast or self-catering facilities or which merely make arrangements for guests to eat at a nearby café or restaurant which is not part of the hotel premises. This is something we argued about in Committee and I am sure that we do not wish to pursue it further now.
The Amendment makes explicit that the provision of meals is only required to be "at reasonable times", and its purpose is to allay any fears which paragraph (b) might otherwise mean that an hotelier could be required to serve breakfast and evening meals at unreasonable hours. Although we do not consider that any such construction could be put on paragraph (b) as it stands, this Amendment was proposed by the Government in another place to remove any further concern on the point, and I would ask the House to endorse it.

Sir Charles Taylor: I never really know what "reasonable times" means. I feel that this needs some further elucidation by the Minister either by an Order or otherwise. What are "reasonable times" for breakfast or an evening meal? Some people would think that it would be reasonable to have breakfast at 6 o'clock in the morning. Other people would think 9 or 9.30 would be reasonable. There could be disputes between hoteliers and their customers about what are "reasonable times" for breakfast or what are "reasonable times" for an evening meal, which some people would think it reasonable to have at 5.30 or 6 o'clock, though some other people would think 10 o'clock in the evening an even more reasonable time. So I do feel that there has to be some elucidation of what are "reasonable times".
I dislike the word "reasonable" because the interpretation of "reasonable" is always unreasonable.

Mr. Emery: The Minister has referred specifically to the self-catering unit being excluded. I am sorry that an Amendment of mine was not selected, because then the House could have considered this matter more advantageously. The reason why the Minister is in difficulty in this matter is that today the tourist is a person who travels by car and travels by car at many different and varying hours.
A tourist will very likely have young children with him, very likely with a baby asleep at the back of the car. He frequently travels at times when the traffic is least heavy. So by one reason or another he arrives for an enjoyable holiday in the West Country at possibly a late hour at night, or, alternatively at an early hour of the morning, and, of course, he requires either a late evening meal or an early breakfast, as the case may be.
It seems that by inserting the words "at reasonable times" we are doing exactly what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) said—putting in a limitation which is bound to give rise to widely varying interpretations.
Much of the new tourism which is growing up is represented by the person who uses his car to take his family away where previously he has taken his holidays at home. That is the kind of person who wants the self-catering facilities which are the most modern aspect of hotel improvement. It is a considerable weakness in the Bill that the Government have turned their faces against giving grant assistance for improvements or rebuilding to deal with what is the biggest single new factor affecting the tourist industry. I am more than sorry that we shall not be able to have this properly dealt with by the Government.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Blaker: The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and my hon. Friend for Honiton (Mr. Emery) illustrate the disadvantages of the system of so-called hotel incentives which the Government


have adopted, and we have criticised the system in depth in our past debates.
Assuming that the system is to be adopted, we thought that the Amendments to the Clause should go a good deal further than this one does. We did not think that it was necessary for a hotel to provide an evening meal before it qualified for aid. However, as clearly we have been unsuccessful in convincing the Government of that, this small Amendment is in the right direction, and I welcome it.

Mr. William Rodgers: I agree with much that has been said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery). I would like all establishments to provide meals at unreasonable times. We all dislike arriving late at an hotel and being told that we cannot even have a sandwich. We hope that a generous welcome will be given to travellers at all times, because real hospitality will make tourism grow.
That having been said, and conceding that the success of tourism depends on the initiative and astuteness of those running our hotels, I believe that the tourist boards will interpret this provision wisely and that it is to be welcomed. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said that it illustrated the disadvantages of the system. I do not say that the system is not one that cannot be improved at some time. There is always the element of experiment in any scheme. However, I am sure that the House wishes it all success.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 7. line 4, leave out "the normal hotel services (such as" and insert
hotel services appropriate to the establishment (hut including in every case

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The requirement in paragraph (d) of Subsection (2) was designed to exclude establishments where guests have to look after themselves. The requirement for normal hotel services with room cleaning and bed making given by way of illustration was not intended to be exhaustive. Nor was it intended to describe or enforce

qualitative standards of hotel services. For example, it is not intended that a modest hotel in a rural area should be denied a grant because it does not provide all the services which are normal to a "four star" hotel.
I recall that some concern was expressed when we discussed the Bill in Committee in this House that the reference to normal hotel services might be construed too rigidly by the tourist boards. The effect of this amendment is to refer to appropriate services, making quite clear that the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds are essential services which must be provided in every case. It is a necessary part of the requirements about which tourist boards are to be satisfied so that assistance is confined to the kind of hotel for which the hotel incentives scheme is designed, whatever other reflections there may have been on the point.
I recommend the House to agree to the revised wording of paragraph (d).

Mr. Blaker: Once again, I take the view that the Amendment represents a modest improvement on the previous position. We have said in our previous debates that we think that "normal" is the wrong word to use about hotel services. It ignores the fact that there is a great variety of establishments which can be called hotels, and the variety is increasing constantly. We would have been content simply to have the words
hotel services appropriate to the establishment",
without including any specific services.
Subject to that comment, I welcome the Amendment.

Mr. Emery: May I ask the Minister a question? There are some hotels, especially in ski-ing areas, where the accommodation might be described as fairly rough in comparison with a four star hotel. Bunks are provided without bedding, and a visitor is meant to bring a sleeping bag. However, such an establishment is still described as an hotel. If the Minister wanted examples, I would give him two references to this type of accommodation. Does not the Amendment mean that an establishment providing that type of accommodation will not qualify for grant?

Mr. Rodgers: The answer is that the Amendment does not exclude what the


hon. Gentleman calls fairly rough hotels. The sort of hotel which does not qualify under the Bill as drafted is excluded.

Mr. Emery: That is brilliant.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8

GRANTS FOR EXTENSION OR ALTERATION OF EXISTING HOTELS

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 7, line 38, at end insert:
and any bathroom or bathrooms appearing to the Board to be provided in association with the bedrooms".

Mr. William Rodgers: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Subsection (3) of Clause 8 provides the tourist boards with a necessary discretionary power as a precaution against abuse of the provisions of Clause 8, and we discussed this in Committee.
In the generality of cases, expenditure eligible for Clause 8 grants will include all expenditure which the tourist boards consider to be of a capital nature. Thus capital expenditure can cover only constructional and fixed equipment costs of the actual bedrooms but also expenditure on extending or improving other facilities such as bathrooms, lavatories. lounge, dining and recreation areas, and kitchens.
It is necessary to guard against the provisions of Clause 8 being abused in order to obtain more grant for the mere improvement of hotel facilities than could be secured under Clause 9. A simple example would be the case of someone merely designating "staff bedrooms" as additional letting bedrooms in order to obtain grant.
Subsection (3) provides the tourist hoards with discretion to exclude expenditure not attributable to the provision of additional bedrooms in cases where they are partly provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. It is a necessary power but the tourist boards will obviously want to see additional bedrooms provided freely since this is the main purpose of this hotel incentives scheme.
Concern has been expressed lest this essential discretionary power might be applied too rigidly as regards bathroom facilities provided in conjunction with extra letting bedrooms. I understand that the other place was much concerned with adequate bathroom accommodation. Following discussion in another place, the Government proposed this Amendment to cover the bathroom point, without detracting from the essential purpose of the discretionary power in subsection (3) I commend it to the House.

Mr. Blaker: This Amendment is made in response to suggestions by Conservative peers and I welcome it. It is rather curious that it has to be left to the Conservative peers to convince the Government of the importance of bathrooms in the modern hotel industry.

Sir C. Taylor: Before we say goodbye to the Bill, as many of us have spent a great amount of time on it, I think that it is fair to say that we have received from the other place eight Amendments which have been accepted. On behalf of those who are apt to pour scorn on the work of another place, I think that we should express our gratitude for its attempts to improve the Bill in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 6

GENERAL POWERS OF EXECUTIVE

Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 6, leave out lines 24 to 33 and insert:
(a) to carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on any read within Greater London, and with the consent of the Minister on any road outside Greater London, but the Minister shall not give his consent under this paragraph unless satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances which make it desirable that the Executive should carry passengers by stage carriage or express carriage on a particular route outside Greater London;
(b) to carry passengers by contract carriage on roads within Greater London, and where the passengers consist of a pleasure party of persons employed by the Council, with or without their families or friends, within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross;
(bb) to carry passengers by any form of rail or water transport (including hovercraft) within, to or from Greater London and, so far as is requisite in connection with the


exercise of their powers under this paragraph, between places outside Greater London.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of this Amendment and Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 35, leave out "or (b)" and insert "(b) or (bb)", carried on a Division by the Opposition in another place is to alter completely the arrangements proposed in the Bill for the operation of bus services by the new London Transport Executive. Under the terms of subsection (1)(a), as originally drafted, the Executive will have a capacity power to carry passengers by
any form of land or water transport
within, to or from Greater London, and under subsection (1)(b), as originally drafted, it will be able in certain limited cases to carry passengers to points outside Greater London. The Amendment leaves the provisions relating to railways and water transport virtually untouched, but would limit the carriage of passengers by bus very substantially.
In relation to regular bus services, the power to carry would be tied to Greater London itself, with the consent of the Minister required for operation on any road outside Greater London—with the proviso that the consent should be given only if there are exceptional circumstances which make operation on a particular route desirable. In relation to contract carriage services, the power to carry would again be tied to Greater London, with an exception for parties of the G.L.C.'s employees, who could be carried within a radius of 100 miles from Charing Cross. In general, the carrying powers of the Executive would be tied to Greater London in rather the same way that, at the moment, under provisions deriving from the 1933 Act, they are tied to the London Passenger Transport area.
This limitation is quite unacceptable. Its effect would be to place on the L.T.E. restrictions that at the moment apply neither to the P.T.E.s nor to local authority operators under the terms of the 1968 Act. As a matter of basic principle it must be resisted on the ground that the L.T.E. has a duty, in the light of the policy guidelines laid down by the G.L.C., to provide such services as are required

to meet the needs of Greater London, and this cannot be discharged by an unrealistic limitation on its commercial and operating freedom. As the White Paper made clear, there should be no formal or geographical limits to its powers of operation.
Greater London certainly has transport needs outside its own area. The catchment area for commuter travel is wide, and the L.T.E. should have freedom to develop its services to meet these needs. No one intends that it should run all over the country. But Ministerial consent for running on any route outside Greater London would be a massive limitation upon it. The issue of what services the Executive should seek to develop is one for the Council and the Executive to work out, and not one on which the Minister should intervene in the way proposed.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I did not find the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary any more convincing today than on the previous six or seven times that I have heard it—although he reads his brief better now than he used to do. It would be futile for me to repeat the arguments which fully justified their Lordships in the stand that they took. I therefore merely repeat that we do not agree with the Minister. We believe that their Lordships are quite right. Although we shall not ask hon. Members on this side of the House to vote, we are totally convinced that the case that we have argued still stands.

Amendment disagreed to.

Further Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 8. line 12, after "(d)" insert "(i)".

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bob Brown: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The effect of the Amendment is to place upon the London Transport Executive an obligation, in exercising its manufacturing powers conveyed under the Bill, to act as if it were a company engaged in a commercial enterprise. Without going into the details of the proceedings in another place I can say that the situation that has now arisen is that the


Government, while accepting that some further safeguards should be applied to ensure that the Executive does not compete unfairly, are not prepared for this to be achieved by way of the application of the commercial obligation contained in the Amendment. The Government feel that the right course is to taken action on Clause 12 to require the publication of financial results of this sort of trading by the Executive and also to lay this activity open to the possibility of Ministerial intervention.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not wish to detain the House. Once again I say that in this Amendment their Lordships are quite correct. We have argued this case at great length, and although I do not wish to divide on the Amendment I must point out that we have no reason to change the views that we have already expressed.

Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Mr. Bob Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) and her colleagues for facilitating the business of the House in the way they have this evening.
Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Terence Boston, Mr. Bob Brown, Mr. Neil Carmichael, Mr. Michael Heseltine, and Mrs. Margaret Thatcher; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) MONEY (No. 2):

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to prescribe a tolerable standard for houses and to make provision for the treatment of houses and areas, and for payments in respect of houses purchased or vacated, which do not meet that standard

and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise any increase in sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 attributable to any provision in the Act of the present Session to amend the meaning of 'financial year' for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) of the said section 2.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendment No. I agreed to.

Clause 18

RIGHT TO AND AMOUNT OF PAYMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 13, line 9, leave out "or closing order under section 15" and insert:
under section 15 or a closing order under section 15 or 18".

6.20 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendments Nos. 6 and 7.

Dr. Mahon: The normal way of dealing with payments where a closing order has been made is under Clause 18 and Schedule 1, which is a transitional provision. This Amendment brings in a listed building or a building subject to any preservation order under the planning Acts. In other words, the purpose is to close a lacuna in the legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 30, line 8, leave out from "to" to end of line 9 and insert:
any change in the state of the dwelling between the date of the issue or refusal of the certificate and the date of the hearing,".

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment was made in another place to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) during our discussion on Report. He was concerned that the Clause as originally drafted would require the sheriff to be satisfied as to the state of the dwelling at the time both of the local authority's decision and of the hearing of the appeal. The Amendment makes it clear that he need only consider any changes in the state of the dwelling between the two dates.
If there has been no change the sheriff has only to consider the facts which led the local authority to grant or refuse the certificate. If there has been a change—for example, if in the interim the landlord has carried out repairs or the dwelling has deteriorated—the sheriff can take into account the new circumstances, but new evidence need only relate to the change in circumstances. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands, for pointing out this defect.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I thank the Minister for promoting this Amendment in another place. I am sorry that the defect was not spotted earlier, and was raised only on Report. I appreciate that this was the only way to deal with it. I am also grateful to the Minister for writing to me about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56

SUPPLEMENTAL

Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 32, line 44, at end insert:
(2) The power of the Court of Session under section 17(1) as read with section 18 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920, to make an act of sederunt and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of that Act shall extend to sections 50 and 55 of this Act.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Court of Session to make an act of sederunt governing the procedure in sheriff courts in cases under Clauses

50 and 55. Section 17(1) also enables proceedings to be conducted in private, and this Clause would be desirable in relation to applications under Clause 55, since the means of the tenant would be one of the matters under discussion.

Mr. Wylie: I endorse the Amendment. It is admirable.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "A"

AMENDMENT OF MEANING OF "FINANCIAL YEAR" FOR PURPOSES OF S. 2(2) AND (3) OF ACT OF 1968

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 37, line 42, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. At the end of section 2 of the Act of 1968 (aggregate cost contributions) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6) For the purposes of the construction of subsections (2) and (3) of this section after 31st March. 1969, "financial year" means a period of twelve months beginning on 1st April, and in any order made under this section which comes into operation after 31st March, 1969. "financial year" shall be construed accordingly.".

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I suggest that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 11.
This Amendment seeks to make a change of procedure regarding the calculation and application of the representative rate of interest. Local authorities have been content to keep to the financial year as presently prescribed, but the suggestion is that matters should be put in order in this regard, and that we should not have the old swings and roundabouts position. The local authorities wish this change, and we are grateful to another place for the proposal.

Mr. Alec Buchanan-Smith: We discussed this subject the other evening in respect to the subsidy order. Could the Minister now say how the Amendment affects housing associations, which are also affected by the dates? Does it have any influence on their position in relation to the subsidy rate of interest?

Dr. Mabon: I could not, without notice, give any figures, but the influence is only marginal, I am advised. The


primary concern is that local authorities which have been content to accept the balance of the gain on one year with the loss in another, which I have referred to as the swings and roundabouts position, now feel that six weeks is rather long for them to be affected by the lower or higher rates of interest prevailing in one particular year. They wish this change, and the Government think it only fair to make it. The influence on housing associations is important, but marginal. I will later seek to give the hon. Gentleman the figures he wants.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 7

ENACTMENTS REPEALED

Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 61, line 6, at end insert:

"14 Geo. 6. c. 34.
The Housing (Scotland) Act 1950.
In section 125, the proviso."

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment closes a very small gap in the arrangements for controlling the rents of improved houses. It ensures that if a landlord improves a controlled house with grant but does not apply for a qualification certificate, which would enable the tenancy to be converted to rent regulation, he will be able to increase the rent by no more than 12½ per cent. of his expenditure.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 32

GENERAL POWERS EXERCISABLE BY LOCAL AUTHORITY IN GENERAL IMPROVE MENT AREA.

Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 18, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert:
Where a local authority have declared an area to be a general improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section 28(1) of this Act ".

6.30 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Amendment, we were to take Amendment No. 4.
These Amendments will limit the power of local authorities to have compulsory purchase outside the general improvement area, and the phrase now adopted by another place makes it clear that it is not intended to have a wide area but just marginal land.

Mr. Graham Page: These Amendments follow an Amendment proposed by the Opposition in Committee four and a half months ago. We are grateful to the Government for conceding them, but I wish that the Government would understand that the Opposition are always right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35

DISPOSAL AND APPROPRIATION OF LAND

Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 19, line 30, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
(1) Where any land for the time being vested in a local authority for the purposes of this Part of this Act—
(a) consists of or forms part of an open space; or


(b) has been compulsorily acquired under this Part of this Act;
the local authority shall not dispose of it except with the consent of the Minister.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment makes clear that an authority's discretion to dispose of land is limited in the sense that it has to go to the Minister for approval. There is no point, therefore, in laying down limits on such discretion at an earlier point.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 19, line 42, after "or" insert:
subject to subsection (4) of this section".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time, Lords Amendment No. 7, in page 20, line 14, at end insert:
and the consent of the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall not be required to any letting for a term not exceeding seven years".
Lest the information has not reached the Opposition, I take this opportunity to announce that I have selected their two Amendments, that is to say, to the Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 16.

Mr. MacColl: These two Lords Amendments, Nos. 6 and 7, relax slightly the conditions governing a local authority's letting of land. They deal mainly with short lettings for periods not exceeding seven years, in which cases it may not be so easy to define what is meant by the best rent obtainable. The Amendments will make it easier to deal with shorter periods in respect of land.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49

APPEAL IN CERTAIN CASES AGAINST ISSUE OR REFUSAL OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Lords Amendment No. 8: In page 26, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert:

(3) The following provisions shall apply on an appeal under this section, that is to say—

(a) the court shall have regard to the state of the dwelling at the time of the hearing as well as at the time of the issue or refusal of the certificate; and
(b) the court".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. Hon. Members opposite were anxious to have these matters split. It was not possible to reach agreement on the form in which it should be done, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that we would look at it again. The Amendment is the result of further consideration.

Mr. Graham Page: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I only complain again that we were not given this Amendment at once. It was such a simple thing. However, we are grateful for it now.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Can my hon. Friend elaborate on the effect of Amendment No. 8 on the Clause? Does it mean that, although the premises were not fit at the time of the issue of the certificate in the first place, a certificate may be granted subsequently by the court, and, if so, what will happen regarding any costs at the hearing of the case?

Mr. MacColl: The Amendment does not alter the content of the Bill. The court has discretion as regards the state of the building and costs under the Bill as drafted. Those discretions are treated separately in this way. On the general point which my hon. Friend raises, it is within the discretion of the court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 50

POSTPONEMENT IN CERTAIN CASES OF EFFECT OF QUALIFICATION CERTIFICATE

Lords Amendment No. 9: In page 27, line 19, leave out "January 1971" and insert "April 1970".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: It will be convenient to take, at the same time, the following two


Lords Amendments: No. 10: In page 27, line 22, leave out "July 1971" and insert "October 1970".
No. 11: In page 27, line 26, leave out "January 1972" and insert "April 1971".

Mr. MacColl: This matter has been fully discussed on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report in this House and there is no doubt that there is a strong divergence of view. The Government—and, I hope and believe, the majority of the House—take the view that the arrangements we reached under the Bill were the fairest arrangements as between the two different points of view, the two views being that represented by some of my hon. Friends who thought that this whole procedure of bringing property in good condition into regulation was completely misconceived, and that represented by those who thought that we ought to make it easier and move more speedily.
Principally, it is a question not of policy but of administration. The main purpose of the Bill—one keeps repeating this—is to bring property into improved condition. It is a Housing Bill for that purpose. Therefore, that should be the first call on the time of rent officers, and they should not find themselves with a back-log of cases of dwellings already in the required state which floods them so much that they have no time to do the work which is intended under the Bill.
The other place has not challenged the principle of postponement; it has sought only to reduce the periods of time, inserting April, 1970, instead of January, 1971, October, 1970, instead of July, 1971, and April, 1971, instead of January, 1972.
The effect of trying to speed matters up in that way would not be wise. It would mean that, comparatively soon after the passing of the Bill, which we are anxious to see, there would be opportunity for these dwellings to be subject to application for registration. My advice is that we go back to the original view, which was no snap judgment but was the result of discussion, argument and vote at every stage. It was a considered view taken after a great deal of earnest discussion on both sides.
I invite the House to disagree with these three Amendments.

Mr. Graham Page: The principle of the part of the Bill in which Clause 50 falls is to give fair rents for fit premises. That principle was breached when the Government introduced the delaying Clause. We fought the whole proposal to delay conversion from controlled to regulated property when property had been improved, that is, when improvements had been installed before the commencement of the Bill. This delay is contrary to the principles of Part III, fair rents for well kept property. At this stage, unfortunately, we must with reluctance accept the proposal in general and try to bring some sort of justice and fairness into its application.
When I watch television plays and thriller serials, I always have difficulty in distinguishing between the "goodies" and the "baddies". I find myself cheering "baddies" and booing "goodies". The Government have fallen into the same error. Here, the "goodies" are the landlords who have put improvements into their properties, when they were receiving only controlled rents and only the low level of grants. The "baddies" are those who have waited for the Bill to become law, who receive the increased grants, and who allowed their property to go unimproved up to the present.
It is right, perhaps, that the Government should be a sort of father of the prodigal son and encourage what I call the "baddies", but they need not do it at the expense of the "goodies". They are doing it at the expense of landlords who have improved their properties, because they say that there are not enough rent officers to make the decisions and the rent officers must be reserved for those who will improve their properties in future. But, while saying that, they take full-page advertisements in national newspapers, telling people to go to their rent officers, with pictures of rent officers across the top of the advertisements, and so on.
According to Government figures, the estimate is that 200,000 houses are affected by the Clause, that is to say, 200,000 applicants for a fair rent. I do not think that they will all need very much time with the rent officers, but even if they take up the same time as the present cases before the rent officers


the figures show that the rent officers can take on that number of cases.
There are at present 263 rent officers doing 44,000 cases a year. If my arithmetic is correct, that means that every rent officer does only three or four cases a week. I believe that they could deal with four or five times that number and cope with the 200,000 applicants over a shorter period of time.
The Parliamentary Secretary nearly "came clean" over this. It is not the fear of a revolt by rent officers that worries the Government, it is this extra-

ordinary fear of a revolt by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and his hon. Friends, who object to the whole principle of moving from "controlled" to "regulated". The Government should stand up to them and say that the rent officers can cope with this and so give justice to the landlords.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 144.

Division No. 345.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Armstrong, Ernest
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Molloy, William


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Moonman, Eric


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Barnes, Michael
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Beaney, Alan
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hattersley, Roy
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Murray, Albert


Boston, Terence
Heffer, Eric S.
Neal, Harold


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Newens, Stan


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Orbach, Maurice


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orme, Stanley


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Coleman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Park, Trevor


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Johnson,Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stratford)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)



Kerr, Russell (Feltham)



Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Randall, Harry


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rees, Merlyn


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, John (Reading)
Richard, Ivor


Dobson, Ray
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Luard, Evan
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rose, Paul


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Ryan John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Julius


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Skeffington, Arthur


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Ford, Ben
Manuel, Archie
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Fowler, Gerry
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Tinn, James


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Tomney, Frank


Gardner, Tony
Mayhew, Christopher
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Ginsburg, David
Mendelson, John
wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)




Weitzman, David
Willey, At. Hn. Frederick
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Winnick, David


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Whitaker, Ben
Williams, Cilfford (Aberttillery)



White, Mrs. Eirene
Willis, Rt. Hn. George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Dr. M. S. Miller and Mr. Alan Fitch.


Whitlock, William






NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gurden, Harold
Peel, John


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Percival, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Pink, R. Bonner


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Pounder, Rafton


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bessell, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Prior, J. M. L.


Blaker, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hawkins, Paul
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hill, J. E. B.
Royle, Anthony


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Silvester, Frederick


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John (London &amp; W' minster)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Clark, Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clegg, Walter
Kimball, Marcus
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Corfield, F. V.
Kirk, Peter
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Dance, James
Lane, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lawler, Wallace
Waddington, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


du Cann Rt. Hn. Edward
Longden, Gilbert
Wall, Patrick



Lubbock, Eric
Walters, Dennis


Eden, Sir John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn, William


Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Wiggin, A. W 


Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fisher, Nigel
Maginnis, John E.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Neil
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Foster, Sir John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Miscampbell, Norman
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Younger, Hn. George


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Murton, Oscar



Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Mr. Jasper More and


Grant, Anthony
Nott, John
Mr. Hector Monro.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Onslow, Cranley

Subsequent Lords Amendment disagreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 27, line 28, after "elsewhere" insert "of a value"

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment remedies a printing omission.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 56

SUPPLEMENTAL

Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 30, line 38, at end insert:
(2) The power of the Lord Chancellor under section 106 of the Rent Act, 1968 to make rules and give directions for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions specified in subsection (3) of that section shall extend to sections 49 and 54 of this Act.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to Lords Amendment, in line 5, leave out 'and 54'and insert '54 and 55'.
The new subsection to Clause 56 gives the Lord Chancellor power to make rules in connection with Clauses 49, 54 and 55. In Committee we raised the matter of rules under Clause 49. Clause 54 deals with the application to county courts if a tenant refuses to consent to improvements. Clause 55 was a modification of that introduced on Report. It deals with the production of a certificate by the rating authority to the county court in the course of proceedings requiring the tenant to give his consent to improvements being carried out. It provides for a certificate to be deemed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved.
It may well be necessary for some procedure to be prescribed to notify a tenant of his rights to produce such a certificate to the court and in relation to the way in which it should be pleaded as a defence. Unless there are some rules in this matter, there will be a serious gap in procedure. The Government may be advised that it is unlikely that rules will be unnecssary under the Clause, but it is possible that they may be necessary. There is no harm in the Lord Chancellor having power to makes those rules should the occasion arise.

Mr. Skeffington: I regret that I must advise the House not to accept this Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I do so not for any doctrinal reason, but simply for the reason that it is not necessary—in fact, it cannot be done.
Lords Amendment No. 13 prescribes the rules in specific cases in relation to Section 106 of the Rent Act, 1968, in the making of regulations. This is proper in regard to Clause 54, because these are matters which may come before the court; but Clause 55 deals with the procedures in the rating office and I am advised that the Lord Chancellor cannot make rules to deal with that.
I have had the point carefully checked. There is a general power in any event for the Lord Chancellor to make rules. We thought it advisable to have the Amendment in relation to Section 106 since that deals with specific matters. There is a general power. The lawyers

have looked at the matter carefully and they are of the opinion that the Lord Chancellor is not in a position to make these rules. For that reason, rather than any doctrinal reason, I must ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Question, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Lords Amendment agreed to.

New Clause "A"

INCREASE OF FINE UNDER S. 170 OF HOUSING ACT 1957

Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 42, line 7, at end insert new Clause "A":
A. Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 (power of local authority to require information as to ownership of premises) shall have effect, with respect to offences committed after the commencement of this Act, as if for the words 'five pounds' there were substituted the words 'fifty pounds'.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment is designed to increase the penalty of £5, which has remained unchanged since 1930. In cases of multiple occupation certain people have been prepared repeatedly to pay a fine of £5 and not divulge the information which would enable the local authority to make the necessary order. This point was originally raised by the Association of Municipal Corporations. I am sure that the House will welcome the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "B"

RIGHT TO TERMINATE PERIOD FOR WHICH OPTION NOTICE HAS EFFECT

Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 45, line 25, at end insert new Clause "B":
B.—(1) In section 24(3) of the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, the following shall he inserted after paragraph (vi)—
'(vii) the taking effect of a notice under section 26A of this Act.'
(2) After section 26 of that Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
'26A.—(1) Where an option notice has been given in respect of a loan the person or persons in whom the rights and obligations under the repayment contract are for the time being vested may by notice to the


lender bring the period for which the option notice has effect to an end on 31st March of any year not earlier than 1973, but only if not less than five years have then elapsed since the date of the repayment contract.
(2) A notice under this section must be in writing and in such form as the Minister may direct and must be given not less than three months before the date on which it is to take effect.' ".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is in the form of new Clause B, and deals with a matter which was discussed both on the Housing (Subsidies) Bill in 1967 and on this Bill. The House will remember that on Report we introduced a new Clause which provided power for my right hon. Friend to make Orders to extend the option mortgage scheme. Both Front Benches thought it desirable to have some degree of contracting-out.
The difficulty was that the lending agencies found great trouble in doing so. Originally, in 1967, they agreed to contract in in cases of hardship, but it was not possible to reach agreement about contracting out. We promised that we would continue our discussions, and I am happy to say that we were able to reach agreement to have a five-year period at the end of which a borrower may contract out of the scheme. It is a once-and-for-all choice. He does not get a period of grace every five years on his mortgage. We feel that this is a desirable addition to make to the Bill.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: I can understand the halting and hesitant voice with which the Minister proposed the new Clause. If ever there was a case of a Government constantly saying that in their view something was impossible and the Opposition saying that it was not and that it could be done, it is mortgage options.
Last October we stated in a policy statement that this would be our policy. There was an immediate reaction from the Government saying that it was absurd and could not be done.
In a censure debate in January the Minister of Housing and Local Government—we are all sorry to hear that he is ill in hospital, and I am sure that both

sides of the House wish him a speedy recovery—waved a paper at me and said that it was impossible and how wrong were my promises to the electors in this sphere.
On Report, we were again told that it was impossible. Finally, due to the constant efforts of the Opposition, the Government gave way. We are delighted that they have given way, but we do not think much of the way that they have done it. Many people with mortgage options feel that they have been swindled by the scheme. I believe that 1973 is not soon enough. When we are returned to office in the near future, we will allow those who have already taken out mortgage options to exercise an option before 1973 and thereafter, if considered right and appropriate, we will keep the five-year timetable.
As this is an improvement and an acceptance of the principle of the Opposition's policy, we welcome the new Clause.

Mr. MacColl: A strong Government does not need to be worried about being ragged over a matter like this. We have always said that we were not against it in principle. We had a diplomatic undertanding about getting the lending agencies to agree, which was not helped by the demagogic activities of hon. Gentlemen opposite. But by good humour and calmness, we reached agreement. The hon. Gentleman can have his crow, but we are interested in getting on with the job that we want to do.

Question put and agreed to. [Special Entry.]

Clause 79

OTHER LONG TENANCIES

Lords Amendment No. 16: In page 46, line 20, leave out from "it" to "be" in line 21 and insert:
Schedule 7 to this Act shall apply and, if the tenancy was granted before the commencement of this Act,".

Read a Second time.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, leave out "commencement" and insert "passing".
I propose to make a unique speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box by saying that this is a drafting Amendment.

Mr. MacColl: I am glad that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not intend to say that this is in their election manifesto. We are willing to accept the Amendment because it makes a cleaner draft of the Bill.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 46, line 26, leave out from beginning to "it" and insert:
within twenty years of the date when".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I have no hesitation in paying tribute to this Amendment, because it came from the Law Society, not the Opposition, and it is an improvement.

Mr. Peter Walker: It was pointed out on Report.

Mr. MacColl: It was pointed out on Report, but the Law Society suggested a way in which it could be done. Our difficulty was finding a way of doing it. This does it and I think that we should accept the Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 18: In page 46, line 28, after "granted" insert "before the passing of this Act or was granted".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss Lords Amendment No. 21.

Mr. MacColl: These two Amendments deal with the conditions under which Clause 79, dealing with premiums. operates.
The first has the effect that this condition will be imposed only for leases granted from now on. This is because of the difficulty which has arisen over leases already in existence and the great variety of terms which the fertile brains

of conveyances in different parts of the country have produced to get over various problems. We decided that the way to do it was to apply Clause 79 to future leases, not to those already in existence. By a strange coincidence another place came to the same conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 19: In page 46, line 36, after "underletting" insert:
of the whole of the premises comprised in the tenancy

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is a point that the Law Society made to us, that it is not uncommon for leases to permit the assignment of the lease of the whole premises let while prohibiting assignment or subletting of part of them only.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 46 line 40, leave out from "term" to "offer" in line 41 and insert:
requiring in connection with a request for consent the making of an

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The last of the three conditions in Clause 79(2) is that it must be possible to assign or underlet the tenancy and, in connection with this, the Clause provides that a tenancy with a term
making a request for consent dependent on a previous offer to surrender the tenancy
would not satisfy this condition.
The Law Society pointed out that it is not necessarily the request for consent which is dependent on a previous offer to surrender. This is a drafting Amendment to meet that situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 80

PRICE PAYABLE ON ENFRANCHISEMENT OF LEASEHOLD HOUSE

Lords Amendment No. 22: In page 47, line 14, after "tenant" insert:
and members of his family who reside in the house

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I suggest that we take Lords Amendment No. 23.

Mr. Skeffington: On Report, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) all stressed the importance of giving further consideration to the new formula to make sure that the Government had now got it right. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) pointed out that the Government's new Clause excluded the tenant himself from being a bidder in the market, but not members of his family who were living with him.
I undertook to consider the representations made from both sides of the House. As a result, these Amendments provide for members of the family of the enfranchisee who reside in the house The definition is in relation to family as it appears in Section 7(7) of the 1967 Act. This is a welcome decision. I hope that the House will agree with the recommendation.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause "C"

AMENDMENT OF RENT ACT 1968 s. 46

Lords Amendments No. 24: In page 47, line 18, at end insert new Clause "C"—
C. At the end of section 46 of the Rent Act 1968 (determination of fair rent) there shall be added the following subsection:—
'(4) In this section "improvement" includes the replacement of any fixture or fitting.'

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This new Clause deals with one of the old thorny problems of Rent Act legis-

lation, namely, the distinction between improvements and repairs.
Section 46(3) of the Rent Act, 1968, requires rent officers and rent assessment committees, when determining the fair rent, to disregard improvements carried out by tenants otherwise than in pursuance of the terms of the tenancy. Although it is not expected that in the majority of cases the Amendment will make any appreciable difference to the amount of the rent, it is considered fair and just that a tenant who pays for work which adds to the comfort and convenience of his house should not have to pay additional rent as a result of it, and that the landlord who does improvements can get increased rents. In the case of repairs the landlord is assumed to fulfil his obligations and therefore they are not separately treated.
It was found, when the Housing (Scotland) Bill was going through, that a Government Amendment was made to deal with replacement. It seemed sensible to have the same provisions in this Bill as in the Scottish Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 83

INTERPRETATION

Lords Amendment No. 25: In page 48, line 32, leave out from "capacity" to end of line 34.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment removes the restriction on the cost of works carried out by housing authorities—works for improvement and standard contributions and for contributions towards environmental improvements.
The restriction in the Bill as drafted followed that applicable to contributions under other legislation. It does not seem necessary to have it, and the Amendment will remove the restriction from the local authority. For this reason, I think that that is to be welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88

CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords Amendment No. 26: In page 50, line 1, leave out from "Act" to first "the" and insert:
except sections 78 to 80, shall not come into force until".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
The Amendment applies to three important Clauses, Clauses 78, 79, and 80, which deal with various aspects of long leases. It provides for all three Clauses to come into operation immediately the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and not, as is the case with the rest of the Bill, one month later. I do not think that it is necessary to make the case for saying that it is desirable to bring them into operation as quickly as possible, because they are holding up agreements and it is desirable that people should be able to operate quickly on them. They do not involve, as most of the Bill does, some fairly complicated paper work in the way of forms, and so on, and therefore there seems no reason why we should not accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

RESTRICTION ON RENT INCREASES

Lords Amendment No. 28: In page 56, line 7, leave out from "of" to end of line 13, and insert "two years delay".

Mr. Speaker: There is a Motion to disagree with this Amendment and the next two, Nos. 29 and 30, so I think that we might debate them together.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This, again, is a matter which has been discussed at all stages of the Bill. Unlike the previous case on which we invited the House to disagree with the other place, the Amendment deals, not with postponement, but with the phasing of rent increases which have been registered. The point is common in relation to council rents. Where there is a sudden

sharp increase in rents, even if the original rent was not high, this could lead to the dislocation of the arrangements of the household, and it is desirable to phase the increase over a period so that people can get used to it and adjust to it.
That principle is not challenged in the Amendment, but what is proposed is that the period of the phasing should be reduced. This was debated in Committee and defeated on a Division. It was debated again in the House, and again defeated on a Division. I think that the House indicated that we had got the phasing right, and, therefore I invite the House to assert again that it wants to keep the original proposal.

Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that we are debating Lords Amendment No. 28, and discussing the next two Amendments with it.

Mr. Graham Page: It is true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that for the purpose of debating the Amendment we are accepting a phasing, but not a different phasing for different landlords. What we object to is the distinction between the landlord who has improved his property in the past, and the landlord who will improve his property in the future.
The landlord who has improved his property in the past will not get his full fair rent for five years. The landlord who improves his property in the future, on the basis of the increased grant, will get his fair rent phased over a period of only three years. Their Lordships endeavoured to bring some sense and justice into this by reducing the period from four years to two years, and to apply the same rule to both kinds of landlord. This surely is the sensible way to do it. There cannot be any logic or moral in making this distinction between two different kinds of landlord.
7.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman said that the increase would be too sharp on the tenants. Would it be too sharp if it was spread over two years? Why should the tenant of a landlord who improves his property in the future be less able to bear the increase than the tenant of a landlord who has improved his property in the past? This sharp phasing over two years will apply to tenants who have their property


improved in the future. Why should the landlord who has improved his property in the past have to wait five years? What encouragement is there in this?
The Minister has said that it is impossible to maintain property on controlled rents, and yet he is arguing that landlords who have improved their property on controlled rents in the past should maintain them on controlled rents for a further period. This is illogical, unfair, and unjust.

Mr. MacColl: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must have the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. MacColl: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might say that the hon. Gentleman has misinstructed himself. The distinction is not between controlled property brought into improvement, and controlled property already in improvement. This applies to registered regulated rents where the increases are less and they have been brought up before. It is not a distinction between two types of control.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 134.

Division No. 346.]
AYES
[7.18 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Archer, Peter
Gardner, Tony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Ginsburg, David
Mayhew, Christopher


Barnes, Michael
Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Baxter, William
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Millan, Bruce


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Grimond, Rt, Hn. J.
Molloy, William


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boyden, James
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bradley, Tom
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Brooks, Edwin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Moyle, Roland


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hazell, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.W.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Murray, Albert


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Henig, Stanley
Neal, Harold


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Norwood, Christopher


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oakes, Gordon


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric


Carmichael, Neil
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oram, Albert E.


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Orbach, Maurice


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Conlan, Bernard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Janner, Sir Barnett
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Johnson,Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dewar, Donald
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lawler, Wallace
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lawson, George
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)



Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)



Eadie, Alex
Lee, John (Reading)
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ensor, David
Lubbock, Eric
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
McBride, Neil
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Faulds, Andrew
McCann, John
Rose, Paul


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Macdonald, A. H.
Ryan, John


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Silverman, Julius


Forrester, John
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Joseph




Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wallace, George
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David
Winnick, David


Thomas, Rt. Hn. Georgo
Wellbeloved, James
Wyatt, Woodrow


Tinn, James
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)



Tomney, Frank
White, Mrs. Eirene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. loan L Evans and


Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Dr. M.S. Miller.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Pink, R. Bonner


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Gurden, Harold
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Prior, J. M. L.


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Pym, Francis


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bell, Ronald
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Ridsdale, Julian


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hay, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Higgins, Terence L.
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hill, J. E. B.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Scott, Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, B, (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Chataway, Christopher
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Clark, Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Clegg, Walter
Kirk, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cooke, Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Knight, Mrs. Jill
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Corfield, F. V.
Lane, David
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Waddington, David


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Walker,Peter (Worcester)



Maclean, Sir Fitzroy



d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn, Sir Derek


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Drayson, G. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walters, Dennis


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wiggin, A. W.


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fortescue, Tim
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Worsley, Marcus


Foster, Sir John
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Neave, Airey
Younger, Hn. George


Glover, Sir, Douglas
Onslow, Cranley



Goodhart, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gower, Raymond
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Grant, Anthony
Peel, John



Gresham Cooke, R.
Percival, Ian

Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords A mendments agreed to.

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Lords Amendment No. 33: In page 66, line 18, leave out "and 16 "and insert" 16 and 21(1)".

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This part of the Schedule takes out the old definition of multiple occupation. There was an omission of a reference in the 1961 Act which the Amendment puts right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 35: In page 68, line 18, at end insert:
.In section 57(4) of that Act for the words from section 4' to 1958 ' there shall be substituted the words 'Part I of the Housing Act 1969'".

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment substitutes for a reference to the Acts of 1958 and 1959, under which grants are at present being paid, a reference to Part I of the Housing Act, 1969.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 9

SAVINGS AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords Amendment No. 38: In page 69, line 27, at end insert:
.The repeal by this Act of section 49 of the Rent Act 1968 does not affect the operation of that section in relation to any dwelling-house while such a condition relating to the rent of the dwelling-house as is mentioned in that section requires to be observed.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment deals with transitional procedures where there has been an application under Section 49 and before the new provisions come into operation. This was originally provided for in the Bill but this case was missed out.

Mr. Graham Page: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. It applies to cases where conditions have been imposed on properties. In future, when the same circumstances arise, there will be no conditions. I would have thought that the Government might have taken the opportunity to dispose of these conditions altogether. There will be confusion between the old conditions and the new in relation to property which is continuing under conditions while property in new circumstances will not have these conditions. This will cause anomalies.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 10

REPEALS

Lords Amendment No. 39: In page 70, leave out line 10 and insert:
In section 59, subsection (3) and the words' or (3)'in subsection (4)".

Mr. MacColl: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is consequential on the repeal of certain redevelopment area procedure going right back to the 1935 Act. That procedure is now dead following the extension provided by the Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. MacColl, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Skeffington, Mr. Peter Walker, and Mrs. Eirene White; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. MacColl.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to: to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — MID-HANTS RAILWAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dr. Miller.]

7.34 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I feel that I should start this short debate by an apology to you, Mr. Speaker, to the staff of the House and to the HANSARD reporters for keeping all of you here even for a few minutes more after so many middle watches were kept last night. I will in the circumstances be very brief indeed. Of course, it lies within the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's power to bring the proceedings to a halt within a moment by saying, "O.K. you can have your railway".
There is great concern about the future of the mid-Hants railway running from Alton to Winchester. Many people fear that the line is doomed anyway. There was a notice of closure in November, 1967, and they fear, from the run—down state of the railway and the way in which the line is run—I am not criticising the local staff—that the decision seems already to have been taken. I wrote


recently to the Chairman of Southern Region—
…the suspicion is voiced by many of my constituents that a decision in principle has already been taken and that the services have 'purposely' been badly run in order to produce bad statistics and to prove that the line is not a paying proposition …I am not myself suggesting this machiavellian intent but …I do feel that a fresh appreciation of the whole problem should be made …
Another factor which causes suspicion arises from a recent reply by the Minister to a Question from me: I asked him what estimate of the additional revenue he took into account in reaching his decision that a halt at Kings Worthy would not be a significant factor for the future of this railway line. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
No detailed estimate is necessary to show that revenue from a halt at Kings Worthy could not he a significant factor in reaching a decision on the future of the line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 212.]
This is an extraordinary reply in the case of a suggested halt in a district whose population is growing much more quickly than in any other part of the area used by the railway. My first question to the hon. Gentleman, therefore, is whether he will look again with a completely fresh mind at this question of a new halt at Kings Worthy.
I am not urging the Minister to keep open a railway which is definitely substantially uneconomical in the long run. I am too good a Conservative to suggest any such thing. But my case is that the railway is viable and if run properly could be a profitable little line. In deploying a case of this sort, one has to produce some statistics. It is difficult to bring them into a short debate like this so I shall produce the minimum of figures to support my case.
The latest figures for this line, given to the Ministry by British Rail, are that the total running costs annually are £125,000, less an earnings figure of £29,000. British Rail deduces a deficit of £96,000—a tremendous figure for a small line like this. But these figures are contested, both as to total costs and earnings, by the local authorities, headed by the Winchester Rural District Council, which has done some very useful and detailed research. I will give one or two quick examples of why the figures produced by British Rail are suspect.
British Rail has admitted that the figures are unduly high for some of the costs. The earnings figure is given as £29,000. This is very suspect—indeed it appears to be outrageously wrong. British Rail claims that passenger traffic has reduced since the main Winchester line was electrified, but a local census taken by a rural district council official shows that passenger traffic on the small line has actually increased.
The number of passengers on this small line has increased since the much more convenient revised time-table has been introduced, and commuters can make the connection which suits them at Alton when outward bound or inward bound.
In arriving at the figures for earnings it seems almost incredible that British Railways have not included the proportion of income from through tickets bought further up or down the line. The R.D.C. believes that 60 per cent. of the total passenger traffic is through traffic and should therefore be included as contributory income.
To sum up the statistics, it seems that the figures on earnings should be much more like £36,000 of direct income and £50,000 is direct contributory income, making a total of £86,000, which is much more like a viable railway. There is in existence a copy of a confidential memorandum, for the railway staff, which gives the figure of £85,000 for contributory income alone, excluding direct income. Has the Minister seen that memorandum? It has been forwarded to his Ministry.
My third specific plea to the Minister is that, as the Ministry is responsible for providing accurate figures in deciding a case like this, the railway should not be closed down for financial reasons except on figures agreed by the local authorities. The local authorities are very much taken up with this problem.
I turn to a couple of much broader aspects of the future of the line which I hope the Minister will consider when making his decision. The area served by this railway has a population which is growing very rapidly. Many categories of travellers will be affected, not only in villages where there are stops or halts on the railway, but in the whole agricultural community spread over the large area served by the railway. Not only are stops


and halts in my constituency affected but also stations in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) and Alton and Winchester itself.
There are some special features about the type of passengers who use this railway. In a letter which the county education officer wrote to the Ministry of Transport it was stated:
The public transport situation has changed considerably since the proposed rail closure was brought forward for reconsideration about two years ago.
Throughout the county there are increasing difficulties in arranging for the conveyance of children to and from school. The bus companies are unable to maintain their full staffs for a variety of reasons of which no doubt the Minister is well aware. One local bus company near Winchester has recently been discontinued and the services which the company provided have not been taken over by the major public bus company … whose resources are already fully extended. The education committee have with considerable difficulty been able to make alternative contract arrangements but the cost has been more than doubled.
The road transport industry is unable to convey at appropriate times the passengers who would be displaced if the rail services are withdrawn. It is believed that owing to the labour situation the education authority could provide special transport for these scholars only at a very high cost and additional public expenditure and not benefit other rail passengers who would be displaced.
This is a very strong case, in broad and general terms, that the total cost to the public funds will be greater in respect of serving these schools.
On the subject of hardship, an inquiry was held by the transport users consultative committee. It was held in April this year in Alresford and the committee
expressed the opinion that the closure would cause considerable hardship to travellers from in the period 1st April to 31st October, 1968. journeys over the line to Eastleigh or Southampton by reason of additional travelling time. They considered that the incidence of delays to buses arising from traffic congestion in the Winchester area would often aggravate this hardship, as well as causing inconvenience to local passengers to and from Winchester …They also expressed the view that the developments envisaged in the South Hampshire Study, coupled with the need for road improvements in the Winchester area, made the closure proposal premature, and that based on such financial information as they had any financial gain would be outweighed by the hardship caused.
Does the Minister recognise the hardship referred to in this report from which I have read extracts?
Alternative road communications are inadequate and are getting worse. A comparison of the bus timings shows that anyone wishing to travel from Alresford to Eastleigh can do so in 23 minutes by rail on the present timetable but it would take 102 minutes by two buses even if the buses were not delayed in Winchester traffic as they almost always are.
The fifth point which has a direct bearing on the future of the railway is that the congestion in Winchester, the natural capital of the area, where people who live beside this railway have to go for shopping and so forth is very bad indeed. I had a letter from the city clerk which emphasises how extremely serious this problem is and how much worse it is likely to become every year. Will the Minister write to the town clerk of Winchester and ask his views on the effect of the closure of this railway on parking, road access to and from Winchester and traffic congestion within Winchester? It would be right for the Minister to have a report from the city council about how this would affect the city.
There is a wider issue for the future. "Strategy for the South-East" the Government's overall plan, which is the latest of many plans for orderly development of the south-east of England, speaks of a huge so-called "Solent City" and envisages many growth points to the south of the countryside served by this railway. The map on page 36 of this Green Book, "Strategy for the South-East", shows the railway quite clearly as one of the transport arteries which served this vast conurbation we are expecting to see in the future. I feel strongly that people from the hinterland will want to get into this enormous Solent City daily for employment. That is inevitable. Equally important people will want to escape at weekends to country places to keep themselves healthy and sane.
It is not too much to say that if public expenditure must be made on maintaining this railway, it would be better spent on that than in providing additional new mental hospitals in the Solent City! I urge the Minister to take a long-term strategic view and not to be fobbed off in his Ministry by short-term financial considerations. This is a brief summary of what I feel about the future of this railway. I end with a quotation made


by the town clerk in a recent letter he sent to me:
Anybody who signs away any item of public transport in this area will qualify for a grave in the close of Winchester Cathedral —beside that of Ethelred the Unready.

7.50 p.m.

Miss J. M. Quennell: I support most warmly everything that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) has said. I will not recapitulate on his arguments, which were excellent. However, there is a certain oddity about this issue which has given rise to considerable public disquiet. If there was a case of the handling of an issue lending it a certain oddity, this must be a prime example.
When the Minister considers the application of British Railways, may I point out to him that there is one group of railway users which my hon. and gallant Friend did not mention. This group of people need the railway to get to their institutions of advanced education in Southampton. There is no other way in which they can get to Southampton from the Alton area in my constituency, Many scholars need the railway in order to undertake their daily schooling. Should the line be closed there would be no alternative means of transport for them. They would not be able to continue in the institutions in which they are studying.
It is not my intention to prolong the debate unnecessarily, although I believe that it is possible to go on until 10.30. Therefore, the Minister is fortunate that all the Hampshire Members have not seen fit to attend the debate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take a very long look at the application of British Railways in respect of this line. I urge him to consider the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend advanced. I urge him to consider the various reports including "Strategy for the South-East", and the future development of this area and then consider what would be the consequences of the closure of this line.

7.52 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I, too, am grateful that other Hampshire Members are perhaps

as tired as I am. Last evening I had to deal with two items under the Consolidated Fund Bill which were separated by eight hours. I am therefore grateful that not all the Hampshire Members are present.
I need hardly say that I have been aware for some time of the great interest which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) has expressed in the proposal to withdraw all passenger services from the railway line between Alton and Winchester. That interest has been shared by several other Members and the speeches we have heard tonight cannot have failed to impress by their genuine and reasoned concern.
Under the relevant provisions of the Transport Act, 1962, it is the Minister who is responsible for deciding whether or not to give his consent to this closure proposal. As in all cases of this kind, the process of consultation and consideration is extremely lengthy and detailed and I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising the care which is devoted to the examination of these proposals and which accounts, in large measure for the time which has elapsed between publication and decision. I assure hon. Members that a decision has not yet been taken.
Apart from the voluminous information provided by the Railways Board at every stage of the inquiry, the Minister receives the advice of the Transport Users Consultative Committee on hardship matters, of the Regional Economic Planning Council on planning and development considerations, of other Departments of Government which have a special interest and of his own Divisional Road Engineer on road traffic and congestion. He also takes into account the views expressed by local authorities and other organisations and I would like to pay a special tribute, in this case, to the efforts made on behalf of present and potential users by the Winchester Rural District Council, representing the local authorities concerned in the case, to ensure that no relevant consideration is overlooked. All the information assembled in this way is subjected to the most careful analysis by the Department's administrators and economists before the decision is taken.
The Mid-Hants railway is a single track line about 17 miles long. It was shown as a "grey line", that is one not selected


for development as part of the basic system, in the Railways Network for Development Map which, it will be remembered, was published jointly by the Minister and the Railways in March, 1967. The closure proposal was published in December, 1967, and the Minister received the Transport Users Consultative Committee's report in August last year. The report concluded that closure would give rise to hardship due mainly to increased journey times and difficulties caused by road traffic congestion in the Winchester area if buses had to be used instead of trains. Five weekly counts of rail passenger usage had been taken between April, 1967, and June, 1968, at different seasons of the year, but at the Minister's request a further census was taken in October, 1968. These counts showed a general decline in usage after April, 1967. However, the latest tendency shown by single day counts in April this year is towards a return to April, 1967, levels.
We have given a good deal of thought to the question of whether buses would provide a satisfactory alternative to rail services. We are particularly aware of the problem posed by road congestion at peak hours in Winchester. We know, too, that routeing between Alresford and Winchester presents some difficulties. We have been told of recent changes in existing bus services in the Winchester area. We have discussed with the Department of Education and Science how schoolchildren, who account for about half of the regular daily users, could be catered for, possibly by contract bus services. Our conclusions on these matters will strongly influence the Minister's final decision and if he were to decide to give his consent to closure he would ensure that the necessary conditions were attached to his consent which would have to be complied with before the train service could be discontinued.
As announced last January, the Minister is paying an interim social grant for the maintenance of the present service on this line under Section 39(4) of the Transport Act, 1968. If the Minister were to decide that the service should be retained a grant of the order of about £90,000 a year would have to be paid under Section 39(1) of the Act. This would amount to a deficit of over 6d. a passenger mile. This figure is cal-

culated in accordance with the recommendations of the Joint Steering Group on the assumption that the line would be maintained in perpetuity, that full provision would be made for depreciation and renewals on a replacement cost basis and that provision would also be made for administration and interest. The estimated deficit is based on a revenue of about £30,000 which accords with the railways latest traffic figures, but is a good deal lower than figures of earnings quoted in the past.
The Minister cannot ignore the fact that this service is losing a considerable sum of money annually, that the deficit has to be met by the taxpayers and that because this 17 miles long track is already singled there is little scope for major economies.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the grant which is paid takes into account the contributory income to which I referred? The figure of about £30,000 for income which he has given obviously does not include the contributory income by "through" passengers.

Mr. Carmichael: We have some difficulty in convincing people about certain figures, but the fact is that on the figures of which I have spoken, the Government already pay the railways £90,000 a year.
I was discussing the question of providing alternative public transport, the extent to which road congestion in Winchester and Alton can be relieved by new roads and the possibility of some growth in the number of potential regular rail users in the area. These are all matters which in the last resort must be analysed and assessed by the Minister. But he is most anxious that the factual evidence on which his decision will be based is reliable and is seen to be reliable.
We have paid special attention to the information and the arguments brought to our attention by the local authorities acting on behalf of the users of this line. We are by no means convinced that they have made out a case for the retention of a passenger service on the basis of the facts which have so far been assembled. But we think that they have argued sufficiently strongly to justify our asking the Railways Board to carry


out new counts of users during typical summer and winter weeks. The Minister has also decided that when this new information is available he will ask the transport users' consultative committee for the South-Eastern area to make a further report to him on the proposal. The committee will, moreover, be able to take into account any revised proposals for alternative bus services and any change in circumstances such as the effect of new road improvements on the problem of traffic congestion in and around Winchester when compiling their report to the Minister.
I know that claims have been made that the census figures previously provided by the Railways Board are unreliable. I do not accept this, but I am most anxious that those concerned should have no cause for complaint even if their suspicions are unfounded. I intend therefore to ask the Board, when they carry out the new census this summer and during the winter, to invite the local authority to be associated with the passenger counts. I hope that this will make sure that whatever is the Minister's final decision there can be no dispute about the traffic figures on which it is based.
Since the Minister has decided to ask the T.U.C.C. for a fresh report, he also intends to ask the Board to review all the financial information which they have previously provided, taking into account whatever estimates of future usage may seem reasonable as a result of these further traffic counts.

Miss Quennell: When the Minister asks the Railways Board to provide further financial information will they do

so on the basis of Report No. 72 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

Mr. Carmichael: There is some confusion. The Railways Board were given authority under another report by the National Board for Prices and Incomes to charge commercially for their services —in other words, to charge market prices for the services. Of course, they are looking to the future, not simply looking at a static position. They are looking at the question of increased traffic. If the loss-making is relatively small and a reasonable increase in fares is likely to counteract this loss or to bring it within a reasonable figure, then obviously, not only in this case but in all cases, that is considered. Hon. Members frequently say to me, "Will it not help if fares are increased?" Unfortunately, in a large number of cases—I am not commenting on this case—the increase in fares would need to be astronomical to make the service a going concern.
To sum up, we shall not reach a final decision until the Minister is entirely satisfied that he has full and accurate information on all aspects of the case. I hope that what I have said will assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friend that all this information is being assembled and analysed, even at the cost of prolonging the time before a final decision can be reached. I am sure that that is the right thing to do and that, although perhaps it will take longer, we shall ultimately reach a decision of which we can say that at least everyone will be clear about the basis on which it has been reached.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eight o'clock.